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 80AACC000D; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 22:47:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6241560AD2; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 22:47:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.599 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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 HVgqntolFrMr; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 22:47:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-40140.protonmail.ch (mail-40140.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.140]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F248E6078B; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 22:47:24 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2021 22:47:11 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1633733241; bh=X47zZnASoxFE5XLpeNqd/cyJIvrItrlic2QN4IiqIOk=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=dBOWzsAX92MoF717yIq7YOO9YQXJgDGFNptqmI0GYixZMKRaC5T6RJylBAel80+xF tGOECm2oBm8FjBjwasLMJ+vB+3sAeIdjSnFIZFB3fLXGfM4sAVQp/IA12bvMHudSVf d0EIVMdn56R7PlHFeOvprsxJa7y+MyQdk5I0Bs3M= To: Pieter Wuille , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <20210808215101.wuaidu5ww63ajx6h@ganymede> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: 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: Fri, 08 Oct 2021 22:47:26 -0000 Good morning Pieter, > Indeed - UTXO set size is an externality that unfortunately Bitcoin's con= sensus rules fail to account > for. Having a relay policy that avoids at the very least economically irr= ational behavior makes > perfect sense to me. > > It's also not obvious how consensus rules could deal with this, as you do= n't want consensus rules > with hardcoded prices/feerates. There are possibilities with designs like= transactions getting > a size/weight bonus/penalty, but that's both very hardforky, and hard to = get right without > introducing bad incentives. Why is a +weight malus *very* hardforky? Suppose a new version of a node adds, say, +20 sipa per output of a transac= tion (in order to economically discourage the creation of additional output= s in the UTXO set). Older versions would see the block as being lower weight than usual, but as= the consensus rule is "smaller than 4Msipa" they should still accept any b= lock acceptable to newer versions. It seems to me that only a -weight bonus is hardforky (but then xref SegWit= and its -weight bonus on inputs). I suppose the effect is primarily felt on mining nodes? Miners might refuse to activate such a fork, as they would see fewer transa= ctions per block on average? Regards, ZmnSCPxj