From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B5E7C000B; Sat, 12 Mar 2022 13:02:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B01C40407; Sat, 12 Mar 2022 13:02:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gazeta.pl Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EWbHNVXmcHJs; Sat, 12 Mar 2022 13:02:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from smtpo91.poczta.onet.pl (smtpo91.poczta.onet.pl [213.180.149.144]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76D3D401D2; Sat, 12 Mar 2022 13:02:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pmq5v.m5r2.onet (pmq5v.m5r2.onet [10.174.35.25]) by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id 4KG2yT3ddszlgWLy; Sat, 12 Mar 2022 14:02:25 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gazeta.pl; s=2013; t=1647090145; bh=4D5wXwcnoqy/vPrg1ocSJEXKd9PbtOoPV5yE1WXtNOQ=; h=From:To:Date:Subject:From; b=RfF9X+7zXgay3hTlRNp+WgpMZRwrForWA+JrpxUlrYF7DSVyVYAcZyQV8W6BicmuP eLUUSXiB5T9iNBRdeY7DJCGNFV6NkzdolrVRAv1Rpu/ELFB6k/lf15yjdhAdZsnhpc ZPsZrUu/qArMQKzPc99y6h8u3CePimIA37Qmlk40= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received: from [5.173.224.204] by pmq5v.m5r2.onet via HTTP id ; Sat, 12 Mar 2022 14:02:25 +0100 From: vjudeu@gazeta.pl X-Priority: 3 To: Jeremy , lightning-dev , Bitcoin development mailing list Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2022 14:02:24 +0100 Message-Id: <158448037-69ce54a3e9d127c104583392edfcbf55@pmq5v.m5r2.onet> X-Mailer: onet.poczta X-Onet-PMQ: ;5.173.224.204;PL;3 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 12 Mar 2022 14:19:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Removing the Dust Limit X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2022 13:02:36 -0000 > We should remove the dust limit from Bitcoin. Any node operator can do that. Just put "dustrelayfee=3D0.00000000" in your= bitcoin.conf. And there is more: you can also conditionally allow free transactions: mintxfee=3D0.00000001 minrelaytxfee=3D0.00000000 blockmintxfee=3D0.00000000 Then, when using getblocktemplate you will get transactions with the highes= t fees first anyway, and you include cheap or free transactions in the end,= if there will be enough room for them. So, all of those settings are in the hands of node operators, there is no n= eed to change the source code, all you need is to convince nodes to change = their settings. On 2021-08-08 20:53:28 user Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote: We should remove the dust limit from Bitcoin. Five reasons: 1) it's not our business what outputs people want to create 2) dust outputs can be used in various authentication/delegation smart cont= racts 3) dust sized htlcs in lightning (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questio= ns/46730/can-you-send-amounts-that-would-typically-be-considered-dust-throu= gh-the-light) force channels to operate in a semi-trusted mode which has im= plications (AFAIU) for the regulatory classification of channels in various= jurisdictions; agnostic treatment of fund transfers=C2=A0would simplify th= is (like getting a 0.01 cent dividend check in the mail) 4) thinly divisible colored coin protocols might make use of sats as value = markers for transactions. 5) should we ever do confidential transactions we can't prevent it without = compromising=C2=A0privacy / allowed transfers The main reasons I'm aware of not allow dust creation is that: 1) dust is spam 2) dust fingerprinting attacks 1 is (IMO) not valid given the 5 reasons above, and 2 is preventable by wel= l behaved wallets to not redeem outputs that cost more in fees than they ar= e worth. cheers, jeremy