1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3B4EC0010
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 11 Aug 2021 00:46:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE8EF403A8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 11 Aug 2021 00:46:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, 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_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id uk9aPTEfbgh7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 11 Aug 2021 00:46:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-4319.protonmail.ch (mail-4319.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.19])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 785F8403A4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 11 Aug 2021 00:46:49 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 00:46:36 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1628642806;
bh=bWNHuD+TFNEqfJounqoRND9tT/yWgnBNVAzJbMK7iuA=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=qPS95giXwm994DhO8jyiZ6qH7/HnuurnW4Ow9p8YZ99e17gdlOsK6O5wGxpVZ7AcX
TIn+ZygF8YntLv65j1XN/s1ckaXmrlMM2rSyYshtxALFEadCEtfoxgptiHz5+DdJIa
a89576GLLNCXrGJzdZaehCSKFUlU8zDSMfWFsps4=
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
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 00:46:54 -0000
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
|
