From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 347A6C001A for ; Sat, 21 Aug 2021 03:11:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169B76066F for ; Sat, 21 Aug 2021 03:11:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.202 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wy6Z0En9t45K for ; Sat, 21 Aug 2021 03:10:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-40141.protonmail.ch (mail-40141.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.141]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCE8560664 for ; Sat, 21 Aug 2021 03:10:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2021 03:10:46 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1629515453; bh=I7caONd0c44mXayebSiilrdogIBmqIcQjup2MEgOy5s=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=j53boROyX+H1PBCWa3WfcU/JzgjB8CfW0/GLCfpGkbn5U81xxKl4r3GB+T4lNz3XD r7gGTR4+l+D8yv1pC4orU+FFftNeiUzRZy0ng1dum6U0SXJUoMKiFbAy4K0woSPSyX vKYo1A3Ff7LAiKWoZzxiTf2S2Urkot6moC5oNvWU= To: Jeremy From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: <50s2eg2qZ_BSHhI1mT_mHP7fkDQ8EXnakOb9NmDfZlx_hN44l37UmopfAr2V4ws4yhx0YihNYBIOelJ01vhITI8K4G1UgmobTwf9FyJq_Yo=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20210810061441.6rg3quotiycomcp6@ganymede> <20210812220339.GA3416@erisian.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , lightning-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-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, 21 Aug 2021 03:11:00 -0000 Good morning Jeremy, > one interesting point that came up at the bitdevs in austin today that fa= vors remove that i believe is new to this discussion (it was new to me): > > the argument can be reduced to: > > - dust limit is a per-node relay policy. > - it is rational for miners to mine dust outputs given their cost of main= tenance=C2=A0(storing the output potentially forever) is lower than their i= mmediate reward in fees. > - if txn relaying nodes censor something that a miner would mine, users w= ill seek a private/direct relay to the miner and vice versa. > - if direct relay to miner becomes popular, it is both bad for privacy an= d decentralization. > - therefore the dust limit, should there be demand to create dust at prev= ailing mempool feerates, causes an incentive to increase network centraliza= tion=C2=A0(immediately) > > the tradeoff is if a short term immediate incentive to promote network ce= ntralization is better or worse than a long term node operator overhead. Against the above, we should note that in the Lightning spec, when an outpu= t *would have been* created that is less than the dust limit, the output is= instead put into fees. https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/03-transactio= ns.md#trimmed-outputs Thus, the existence of a dust limit encourages L2 protocols to have similar= rules, where outputs below the dust limit are just given over as fees to m= iners, so the existence of a dust limit might very well be incentivize-comp= atible for miners, regardless of centralization effects or not. Regards, ZmnSCPxj