MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAD5xwhjFBjvkMKev_6HFRuRGcZUi7WjO5d963GNXWN4n-06Pqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210808215101.wuaidu5ww63ajx6h@ganymede>
 <MkPutJpff5rqUxXFQrEyHZl6Iz0DfrJU_-BQD-y0El65GQFnj7igVfmWU79fPCtiFztUYl4ofzrqeaN0HFMB45YPErY9rYY7_h1XkuTMfvc=@wuille.net>
 <CAJowKgKt=yYdNOYYNsWh7FJ2EH7rz0bd2EjUjmyA=cA6k5cvUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <BtaljKLqpe75GB6pHEPQMF6_L-hBaE0ZCBGaXrUfnHRYeEbCqFWZ12DaMRm5jEADceL3uPfCiL-WU9MOZJ_m54Zi3Pzu0vSFN3nQvuSKvBM=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BtaljKLqpe75GB6pHEPQMF6_L-hBaE0ZCBGaXrUfnHRYeEbCqFWZ12DaMRm5jEADceL3uPfCiL-WU9MOZJ_m54Zi3Pzu0vSFN3nQvuSKvBM=@protonmail.com>
From: shymaa arafat <shymaa.arafat@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 11:13:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM98U8nSOQ9HpdRLBdkcFAdToW=z7_EhnYisMb7F46ExmJkT-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000090855105cdbfae65"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] Removing the Dust Limit
Precedence: list

--00000000000090855105cdbfae65
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

If u allow me to discuss,,,
I previously suggested storing dust UTXOS in a separate Merkle tree or
strucutre in general if we are talking about the original set.
I'm a kind of person who doesn't like to throw any thing; if it's not
needed now keep it in the basement for example.
So, if dust UTXOS making a burden keep them in secondary storage, where in
such cases u can verify then delete them.



On Thu, Oct 7, 2021, 06:52 ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Good morning e,
>
> > mostly thinking out loud
> >
> > suppose there is a "lightweight" node:
> >
> > 1.  ignores utxo's below the dust limit
> > 2.  doesn't validate dust tx
> > 3.  still validates POW, other tx, etc.
> >
> >     these nodes could possibly get forked - accepting a series of valid,
> >     mined blocks where there is an invalid but ignored dust tx, however
> >     this attack seems every bit as expensive as a 51% attack
>
> How would such a node treat a transaction that spends multiple dust UTXOs
> and creates a single non-dust UTXO out of them (after fees)?
> Is it valid (to such a node) or not?
>
> I presume from #1 it never stores dust UTXOs, so the node cannot know if
> the UTXO being spent by such a tx is spending dust, or trying to spend an
> already-spent TXO, or even inventing a TXO out of `/dev/random`.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--00000000000090855105cdbfae65
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">If u allow me to discuss,,,<div dir=3D"auto">I previously=
 suggested storing dust UTXOS in a separate Merkle tree or strucutre in gen=
eral if we are talking about the original set.<div dir=3D"auto">I&#39;m a k=
ind of person who doesn&#39;t like to throw any thing; if it&#39;s not need=
ed now keep it in the basement for example.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto">So=
, if dust UTXOS making a burden keep them in secondary storage, where in su=
ch cases u can verify then delete them.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><d=
iv dir=3D"auto"><br></div></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div d=
ir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Oct 7, 2021, 06:52 ZmnSCPxj via bit=
coin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitco=
in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex">Good morning e,<br>
<br>
&gt; mostly thinking out loud<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; suppose there is a &quot;lightweight&quot; node:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; 1.=C2=A0 ignores utxo&#39;s below the dust limit<br>
&gt; 2.=C2=A0 doesn&#39;t validate dust tx<br>
&gt; 3.=C2=A0 still validates POW, other tx, etc.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0these nodes could possibly get forked - accepting a=
 series of valid,<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0mined blocks where there is an invalid but ignored =
dust tx, however<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0this attack seems every bit as expensive as a 51% a=
ttack<br>
<br>
How would such a node treat a transaction that spends multiple dust UTXOs a=
nd creates a single non-dust UTXO out of them (after fees)?<br>
Is it valid (to such a node) or not?<br>
<br>
I presume from #1 it never stores dust UTXOs, so the node cannot know if th=
e UTXO being spent by such a tx is spending dust, or trying to spend an alr=
eady-spent TXO, or even inventing a TXO out of `/dev/random`.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
ZmnSCPxj<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--00000000000090855105cdbfae65--