MIME-Version: 1.0
From: shymaa arafat <shymaa.arafat@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 14:16:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM98U8nLZBagE4L0TuyKkEtk_jqKJ_xDmAixAkLGR8axO86pmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000afaef705d616976c"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Take 2: Removing the Dust Limit
Precedence: list

--000000000000afaef705d616976c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Sir,
Regarding your message
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-December/01963=
6.html
Specifically the part
*"Right now, lightning anchor outputs use a 330 sats amount. Each
commitment*
*transaction has two such outputs, and only one of them is spent"*
I was wondering *is there a way to distinguish those 2 dust UTXOs?*
I mean does(or could) the protocol force the user to always spend the first
not any of them at random?
-My point is to distinguish between them when inserted in the UTXO set to
know in advance which will be spent so fast in the next transaction, and
which is gonna stay there for a while?

-If you look at the number of addresses holding =E2=89=A41$ here (by subtra=
cting
total from >1$), you would find it doesn't change very much with days
https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html
-Meaning not that just official dust value, but values =E2=89=A41$ are rare=
ly spent
unless one forced to. I always had the idea of storing them separately
(along with non-standard & burned ones at least from public addresses,
these should be separated too as they're not expected be spent ever)
.
So the answer may make a difference,
Thank you
Shymaa M Arafat

--000000000000afaef705d616976c
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">Dear Sir,<div dir=3D"auto">Regarding your message</div><d=
iv dir=3D"auto"><a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitc=
oin-dev/2021-December/019636.html" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer"=
 target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/=
2021-December/019636.html</a></div><div dir=3D"auto">Specifically the part<=
/div><div dir=3D"auto"><i style=3D"background-color:rgb(224,224,224)">&quot=
;Right now, lightning anchor outputs use a 330 sats amount. Each commitment=
</i></div><div dir=3D"auto"><i style=3D"background-color:rgb(224,224,224)">=
transaction has two such outputs, and only one of them is spent&quot;</i></=
div><div dir=3D"auto">I was wondering <u>is there a way to distinguish thos=
e 2 dust UTXOs?</u></div><div dir=3D"auto">I mean does(or could) the protoc=
ol force the user to always spend the first not any of them at random?</div=
><div dir=3D"auto">-My point is to distinguish between them when inserted i=
n the UTXO set to know in advance which will be spent so fast in the next t=
ransaction, and which is gonna stay there for a while?</div><div dir=3D"aut=
o"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">-If you look at the number of addresses hold=
ing =E2=89=A41$ here (by subtracting total from &gt;1$), you would find it =
doesn&#39;t change very much with days</div><div dir=3D"auto"><a href=3D"ht=
tps://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html" rel=3D"nore=
ferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://bitinfocharts.com/t=
op-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html</a><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">-Meani=
ng not that just official dust value, but values =E2=89=A41$ are rarely spe=
nt unless one forced to. I always had the idea of storing them separately=
=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto">(along with non-standard &amp; burned ones at=
 least from public addresses, these should be separated too as they&#39;re =
not expected be spent ever)</div><div dir=3D"auto">.</div><div dir=3D"auto"=
>So the answer may make a difference,</div><div dir=3D"auto">Thank you</div=
><div dir=3D"auto">Shymaa M Arafat</div></div>

--000000000000afaef705d616976c--