Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 00:46:36 +0000
To: Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <A_6Qw_n4M_OknLaXunPNuVQG8rSndTGftVktnz2Z0bhTfO5VfkQDyGuFRrF2Y89fDhq8dRfY11oHWpg7EyGoS5EZuUkwoXNZD_RtDcmBZ3Q=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALZpt+G0CRitWLwUTA+7NnnZWNNrsEmFTMW3VmFSQ=vzXZOQGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD5xwhjFBjvkMKev_6HFRuRGcZUi7WjO5d963GNXWN4n-06Pqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALZpt+F9FScaLsvXUozdBL4Ss8r71-gtUS_Fh9i53cK_rSGBeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210810061441.6rg3quotiycomcp6@ganymede>
 <CALZpt+G0CRitWLwUTA+7NnnZWNNrsEmFTMW3VmFSQ=vzXZOQGA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
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

Good morning all,

Thinking a little more, if the dust limit is intended to help keep UTXO set=
s down, then on the LN side, this could be achieved as well by using channe=
l factories (including "one-shot" factories which do not allow changing the=
 topology of the subgraph inside the factory, but have the advantage of not=
 requiring either `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` or an extra CSV constraint that is diff=
icult to weigh in routing algorithms), where multiple channels are backed b=
y a single UTXO.

Of course, with channel factories there is now a greater set of participant=
s who will have differing opinions on appropriate feerate.

So I suppose one can argue that the dust limit becomes less material to hig=
her layers, than actual onchain feerates.


Regards,
ZmnSCPxj