MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAD5xwhjFBjvkMKev_6HFRuRGcZUi7WjO5d963GNXWN4n-06Pqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210808215101.wuaidu5ww63ajx6h@ganymede>
 <MkPutJpff5rqUxXFQrEyHZl6Iz0DfrJU_-BQD-y0El65GQFnj7igVfmWU79fPCtiFztUYl4ofzrqeaN0HFMB45YPErY9rYY7_h1XkuTMfvc=@wuille.net>
In-Reply-To: <MkPutJpff5rqUxXFQrEyHZl6Iz0DfrJU_-BQD-y0El65GQFnj7igVfmWU79fPCtiFztUYl4ofzrqeaN0HFMB45YPErY9rYY7_h1XkuTMfvc=@wuille.net>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 09:40:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJowKgKt=yYdNOYYNsWh7FJ2EH7rz0bd2EjUjmyA=cA6k5cvUQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille.net>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: lightning-dev <lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] Removing the Dust Limit
Precedence: list

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

On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 3:45 AM Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Jumping in late to this thread.
>
> I very much agree with how David Harding presents things, with a few comm=
ents inline.
>
> =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original =
Message =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90
> On Sunday, August 8th, 2021 at 5:51 PM, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > > 1.  it's not our business what outputs people want to create
> >
> > Every additional output added to the UTXO set increases the amount of
> > work full nodes need to do to validate new transactions. For miners
> > for whom fast validation of new blocks can significantly affect their
> > revenue, larger UTXO sets increase their costs and so contributes
> > towards centralization of mining.
> > Allowing 0-value or 1-sat outputs minimizes the cost for polluting the
> > UTXO set during periods of low feerates.
> > If your stuff is going to slow down my node and possibly reduce my
> > censorship resistance, how is that not my business?
>
> 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.
>
> > > 2.  dust outputs can be used in various authentication/delegation sma=
rt
> > >     contracts
> >
> > > 3.  dust sized htlcs in lightning (
> > >     https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/46730/can-you-send-am=
ounts-that-would-typically-be-considered-dust-through-the-light)
> > >     force channels to operate in a semi-trusted mode
> >
> > > 4.  thinly divisible colored coin protocols might make use of sats as=
 value
> > >     markers for transactions.
>
> My personal, and possibly controversial, opinion is that colored coin pro=
tocols have no business being on the Bitcoin chain, possibly
> beyond committing to an occasional batched state update or so. Both becau=
se there is little benefit for tokens with a trusted
> issuer already, and because it competes with using Bitcoin for BTC - the =
token that pays for its security (at least as long as
> the subsidy doesn't run out).
>
> Of course, personal opinions are no reason to dictate what people should =
or can use the chain for, but I do think it's reason to
> voice hesitancy to worsening the system's scalability properties only to =
benefit what I consider misguided use.
>
> > > 5.  should we ever do confidential transactions we can't prevent it w=
ithout
> > >     compromising privacy / allowed transfers
> >
> > I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that you can do that with range
> > proofs. The range proof for >dust doesn't need to become part of the
> > block chain, it can be relay only.
>
> Yeah, range proofs have a non-hidden range; the lower bound can be nonzer=
o, which could be required as part of a relay policy.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Pieter
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev