From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 182D9C000E; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 13:22:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC14C82AC3; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 13:22:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_SBL_A=0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y6HoLgfY8toe; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 13:22:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-wm1-x334.google.com (mail-wm1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::334]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98B2382AA9; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 13:22:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-x334.google.com with SMTP id w21-20020a7bc1150000b02902e69ba66ce6so351343wmi.1; Mon, 09 Aug 2021 06:22:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=D9LuxlqGKGvErixFCwZl1/ylgq8Ku7Kb+w5TIboqQUU=; b=VB+nxdMgkRf+c6MlCjqJYxVUEzBzKlty1cehzadTsMSE9/Qr4d10qe8b/G/HQY5l8S 86LqATWjgoPxkeP4kS9X7TrwHQMDOYjbDZ42PlXRPQ/iO054NFZrrANa08lZiybKx1UR b4sFkBSRhpLx3Ff2Y1gFjyzt4LoUG3BlUBXzSzrdOiQFycX+VqAw6r/hdxVPN+UoDDyM iSd5f3Y5iC9YDji00DrEXEuxlabM1bRPwOYcTgk2Y/tIB7oXofHpZQEoErHZAmF70O+d 6w3DYQlWcsP3DKdnEHWMGDInyoyvUBsKUNnRSTeuFt8IxP6u0wnas0gXwQrqEnhylG3o QFoA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=D9LuxlqGKGvErixFCwZl1/ylgq8Ku7Kb+w5TIboqQUU=; b=VBJBp6cN4G452+6Tbqkt4r+4ivkZyOUFmcgZx1TgHs3mpSZqfYunavsELoqsde9BOm Il1TQjd0DlRUNSnLAbgmdrWFyHxYvTtp3ifweKYWo73IdwgXA+Vhruy6NHG6pyDnZNMe vGDmo0kOxiAbdaXJZ2k1Fo6CgbZY1pJ2RWOl4LH/nZi4atz7T6eReDs/fhOEC+yuM+Bj WPf1zRMClcNBnsPUiQbZ4kC9VpvdQ1kQclwOPY2do7eO46RAXcVKwuuIVvnirBI3wwug wXon25E/gMvJqAS+M68N7052bZ1c0XTmBHLiAPujWu7NPtNeETqSApdQagbmuZwyC/+U Mt7g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5304e2G/LRVb7qwEKB2yN9IAcGhFXDxoUrJwFNunrmjiD2YgSDeU zZlWZGrLJjtjwNhEJHLm7erPYtZVIf/9cgkxbRI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJynehGMTdpMo8gPgJaKmlCCkvKl/8K5WkLyhS5exUPFLvGBajcWOm23fmO2U9QJqC60Kl/dbP0BdBfTHsLU4uE= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4f42:: with SMTP id m2mr34955667wmq.47.1628515361662; Mon, 09 Aug 2021 06:22:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Antoine Riard Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2021 09:22:28 -0400 Message-ID: To: Jeremy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a4a96705c92047dc" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 09 Aug 2021 13:24:03 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list , 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: Mon, 09 Aug 2021 13:22:45 -0000 --000000000000a4a96705c92047dc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm pretty conservative about increasing the standard dust limit in any way. This would convert a higher percentage of LN channels capacity into dust, which is coming with a lowering of funds safety [0]. Of course, we can adjust the LN security model around dust handling to mitigate the safety risk in case of adversarial settings, but ultimately the standard dust limit creates a "hard" bound, and as such it introduces a trust vector in the reliability of your peer to not goes onchain with a commitment heavily-loaded with dust-HTLC you own. LN node operators might be willingly to compensate this "dust" trust vector by relying on side-trust model, such as PKI to authenticate their peers or API tokens (LSATs, PoW tokens), probably not free from consequences for the "openness" of the LN topology... Further, I think any authoritative setting of the dust limit presents the risk of becoming ill-adjusted w.r.t to market realities after a few months or years, and would need periodic reevaluations. Those reevaluations, if not automated, would become a vector of endless dramas and bikeshedding as the L2s ecosystems grow bigger... Note, this would also constrain the design space of newer fee schemes. Such as negotiated-with-mining-pool and discounted consolidation during low feerate periods deployed by such producers of low-value outputs. ` Moreover as an operational point, if we proceed to such an increase on the base-layer, e.g to 20 sat/vb, we're going to severely damage the propagation of any LN transaction, where a commitment transaction is built with less than 20 sat/vb outputs. Of course, core's policy deployment on the base layer is gradual, but we should first give a time window for the LN ecosystem to upgrade and as of today we're still devoid of the mechanism to do it cleanly and asynchronously (e.g dynamic upgrade or quiescence protocol [1]). That said, as raised by other commentators, I don't deny we have a long-term tension between L2 nodes and full-nodes operators about the UTXO set growth, but for now I would rather solve this with smarter engineering such as utreexo on the base-layer side or multi-party shared-utxo or compressed colored coins/authentication smart contracts (e.g opentimestamp's merkle tree in OP_RETURN) on the upper layers rather than altering the current equilibrium. I think the status quo is good enough for now, and I believe we would be better off to learn from another development cycle before tweaking the dust limit in any sense. Antoine [0] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-May/002714.h= tml [1] https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/pull/869 Le dim. 8 ao=C3=BBt 2021 =C3=A0 14:53, Jeremy a =C3=A9cri= t : > 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 > contracts > 3) dust sized htlcs in lightning ( > https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/46730/can-you-send-amounts-th= at-would-typically-be-considered-dust-through-the-light) > force channels to operate in a semi-trusted mode which has implications > (AFAIU) for the regulatory classification of channels in various > jurisdictions; agnostic treatment of fund transfers would simplify this > (like getting a 0.01 cent dividend check in the mail) > 4) thinly divisible colored coin protocols might make use of sats as valu= e > markers for transactions. > 5) should we ever do confidential transactions we can't prevent it withou= t > compromising privacy / 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 > well behaved wallets to not redeem outputs that cost more in fees than th= ey > are worth. > > cheers, > > jeremy > > -- > @JeremyRubin > > _______________________________________________ > Lightning-dev mailing list > Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev > --000000000000a4a96705c92047dc Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm pretty conservative about increasing the stan= dard dust limit in any way. This would convert a higher percentage of LN ch= annels capacity into dust, which is coming with a lowering of funds safety = [0]. Of course, we can adjust the LN security model around dust handling to= mitigate the safety risk in case of adversarial settings, but ultimately t= he standard dust limit creates a=C2=A0 "hard" bound, and as such = it introduces a trust vector in the reliability of your peer to not goesonchain with a commitment heavily-loaded with dust-HTLC you own.

LN= node operators might be willingly to compensate this "dust" trus= t vector by relying on side-trust model, such as PKI to authenticate their = peers or API tokens (LSATs, PoW tokens), probably not free from consequence= s for the "openness" of the LN topology...

Further, I thin= k any authoritative setting of the dust limit presents the risk of becoming= ill-adjusted=C2=A0 w.r.t to market realities after a few months or years, = and would need periodic reevaluations. Those reevaluations, if not automate= d, would become a vector of endless dramas and bikeshedding as the L2s ecos= ystems grow bigger...

Note, this would also constrain the design spa= ce of newer fee schemes. Such as negotiated-with-mining-pool and discounted= consolidation during low feerate periods deployed by such producers of low= -value outputs.
`
Moreover as an operational point, if we proceed to = such an increase on the base-layer, e.g to 20 sat/vb, we're going to se= verely damage the propagation of any LN transaction, where a commitment tra= nsaction is built with less than 20 sat/vb outputs. Of course, core's p= olicy deployment on the base layer is gradual, but we should first give a t= ime window for the LN ecosystem to upgrade and as of today we're still = devoid of the mechanism to do it cleanly and asynchronously (e.g dynamic up= grade or quiescence protocol [1]).

That said, as raised by other com= mentators, I don't deny we have a long-term tension between L2 nodes an= d full-nodes operators about the UTXO set growth, but for now I would rathe= r solve this with smarter engineering such as utreexo on the base-layer sid= e or multi-party shared-utxo or compressed colored coins/authentication sma= rt contracts (e.g opentimestamp's merkle tree in OP_RETURN) on the uppe= r layers rather than altering the current equilibrium.

I think the s= tatus quo is good enough for now, and I believe we would be better off to l= earn from another development cycle before tweaking the dust limit in any s= ense.

Antoine

[0] https://lists.li= nuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-May/002714.html
[1] <= a href=3D"https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/pull/869">https= ://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/pull/869
Le=C2=A0= dim. 8 ao=C3=BBt 2021 =C3=A0=C2=A014:53, Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu> a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
We should remove the dust limit from Bitcoin. Five reason= s:

1) it's not our business what outputs people want to cre= ate
2) dust outputs can be used in= various authentication/delegation smart contracts
3) dust sized htlcs in lightning (https://bitcoin= .stackexchange.com/questions/46730/can-you-send-amounts-that-would-typicall= y-be-considered-dust-through-the-light) force channels to operate in a = semi-trusted mode which has implications (AFAIU) for the regulatory classif= ication of channels in various jurisdictions; agnostic treatment of fund tr= ansfers=C2=A0would simplify this (like getting a 0.01 cent dividend check i= n the mail)
4) thinly divisible co= lored coin protocols might make use of sats as value markers for transactio= ns.
5) should we ever do confident= ial 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 well behaved wall= ets to not redeem outputs that cost more in fees than they are worth.
=

cheers,

jeremy

_______________________________________________
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/ma= ilman/listinfo/lightning-dev
--000000000000a4a96705c92047dc--