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 90D81C000B for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:36:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AC9640158 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:36:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.098 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, BITCOIN_SPAM_04=1, 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=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com 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 nvv8IQVwuEQc for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:36:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-40132.protonmail.ch (mail-40132.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.132]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3087840126 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:36:29 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:36:19 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1645155385; bh=sPbXV2mZPnXuzVkvVipdLe8B46V9qEuJXIavXYUXzFA=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID; b=Il5DQt5lMaKNtiXxqx7PvcQaSC/xKBPqLphFzuCfnjrIxkrmNX14nO/NfyTju3LEm OlBH/yUFOuynes7u27JZOLvxpbl/0ZjZ9kE8kWisZggav7T6k4GVgjuBwpFbRfnvqA JoiR0i+oYzQHxlTv1GwxohRddxBjSYL4lm1BfdLeRB03JPp9A2OQINgddd5MCraep7 LACX3Ft0wXKB17lrTf4e8t7+xXpCnlMoDmMuJ9IyS/8btcSrPvdAIsNY9SSm8tLKdc Esroi1LOSMTBhtGNHmds+jZHtLov4oEgh4/r9513hjgksIPU3jn3kiLIFWl+T71zDB DQfLSq+QNyyLA== To: shymaa arafat , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <382073c28af1ec54827093003cbec2cc@willtech.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: lightning-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A suggestion to periodically destroy (or remove to secondary storage for Archiving reasons) dust, Non-standard UTXOs, and also detected burn 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, 18 Feb 2022 03:36:30 -0000 Good morning shymaa, > I just want to add an alarming info to this thread... > > There are at least 5.7m UTXOs=E2=89=A41000 Sat (~7%),=C2=A0 > 8.04 m =E2=89=A41$ (10%),=C2=A0 > 13.5m =E2=89=A4 0.0001BTC (17%) > > It seems that bitInfoCharts took my enquiry seriously and added a main li= nk for dust analysis: > https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-dustiest-bitcoin-addresses.html > Here, you can see just the first address contains more than 1.7m dust UTX= Os > (ins-outs =3D1,712,706 with a few real UTXOs holding the bulk of 415 BTC)= =C2=A0 > https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/1HckjUpRGcrrRAtFaaCAUaGjsPx9oYm= LaZ > > =C2=BB=C2=BB=C2=BB=C2=BB=C2=BB > =C2=A0That's alarming isn't it?, is it due to the lightning networks prot= ocol or could be some other weird activity going on? > . I believe some blockchain tracking analysts will "dust" addresses that were= spent from (give them 546 sats), in the hope that lousy wallets will use t= he new 546-sat UTXO from the same address but spending to a different addre= ss and combining with *other* inputs with new addresses, thus allowing them= to grow their datasets about fund ownership. Indeed JoinMarket has a policy to ignore-by-default UTXOs that pay to an ad= dress it already spent from, precisely due to this (apparently common, sinc= e my JoinMarket maker got dusted a number of times already) practice. I am personally unsure of how common this is but it seems likely that you c= an eliminate this effect by removing outputs of exactly 546 sats to reused = addresses. Regards, ZmnSCPxj