📅 Original date posted:2021-08-08
📝 Original message:
For the Lightning point, even if the dust limit was removed Lightning
would still be trimming any HTLCs below the amount they cost to redeem
in fees, so that wouldn't make any difference.
Nonetheless I think reason 1 should be enough.
2021-08-08 11:52 (GMT-07:00), Jeremy <jlrubin at mit.edu> said:
> We should remove the dust limit from Bitcoin. Five reasons:
> 1) it's not our business what outputs people want to create
> 2) dust outputs can be used in various authentication/delegation smart
> contracts
> 3) dust sized htlcs in lightning (
> https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/46730/can-you-send-amounts-that-would-typically-be-considered-dust-through-the-light
> ) force channels to operate in a semi-trusted mode which has implications
> (AFAIU) for the regulatory classification of channels in various jurisdictions;
> agnostic treatment of fund transfers would simplify this (like getting a 0.01
> cent dividend check in the mail)
> 4) thinly divisible colored coin protocols might make use of sats as value
> markers for transactions.
> 5) should we ever do confidential transactions we can't prevent it without
> compromising privacy / allowed transfers
> The main reasons I'm aware of not allow dust creation is that:
> 1) dust is spam
> 2) dust fingerprinting attacks
> 1 is (IMO) not valid given the 5 reasons above, and 2 is preventable by well
> behaved wallets to not redeem outputs that cost more in fees than they are
> worth.
> cheers,
> jeremy
> --
> @JeremyRubin_______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
fiatjaf [ARCHIVE] /
npub1v2…pmakl
2023-06-09 13:03:13
in reply to nevent1q…d0r8
Author Public Key
npub1v2xa40strmvauf2gr5gjj5c3yqlytar7p3v64nfg0ke6e0vkvvkqxpmaklPublished at
2023-06-09 13:03:13Event JSON
{
"id": "afa6aaee27d2ff832743c543b8380f5b1e254020024695098a7e3dae82242751",
"pubkey": "628ddabe0b1ed9de25481d11295311203e45f47e0c59aacd287db3acbd96632c",
"created_at": 1686315793,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"fdff60eceee16c22d9f496d7d9791c7f494ddff3c55e9e01f4f28edb26f12690",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"3e0e4b4e04a6ee80f547fb5f56ccb6f9e67291b2bf6a721af6fcd5e728ecd419",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"01f53a3166b3b23139201763777e070fcfed5555ad7555f7e90114c0c9e0e8b4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-08-08\n📝 Original message:\nFor the Lightning point, even if the dust limit was removed Lightning\nwould still be trimming any HTLCs below the amount they cost to redeem\nin fees, so that wouldn't make any difference.\n\nNonetheless I think reason 1 should be enough.\n\n2021-08-08 11:52 (GMT-07:00), Jeremy \u003cjlrubin at mit.edu\u003e said:\n\u003e We should remove the dust limit from Bitcoin. Five reasons:\n\u003e 1) it's not our business what outputs people want to create\n\u003e 2) dust outputs can be used in various authentication/delegation smart\n\u003e contracts\n\u003e 3) dust sized htlcs in lightning (\n\u003e https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/46730/can-you-send-amounts-that-would-typically-be-considered-dust-through-the-light\n\u003e ) force channels to operate in a semi-trusted mode which has implications\n\u003e (AFAIU) for the regulatory classification of channels in various jurisdictions;\n\u003e agnostic treatment of fund transfers would simplify this (like getting a 0.01\n\u003e cent dividend check in the mail)\n\u003e 4) thinly divisible colored coin protocols might make use of sats as value\n\u003e markers for transactions.\n\u003e 5) should we ever do confidential transactions we can't prevent it without\n\u003e compromising privacy / allowed transfers\n\u003e The main reasons I'm aware of not allow dust creation is that:\n\u003e 1) dust is spam\n\u003e 2) dust fingerprinting attacks\n\u003e 1 is (IMO) not valid given the 5 reasons above, and 2 is preventable by well\n\u003e behaved wallets to not redeem outputs that cost more in fees than they are\n\u003e worth.\n\u003e cheers,\n\u003e jeremy\n\u003e --\n\u003e @JeremyRubin_______________________________________________\n\u003e Lightning-dev mailing list\n\u003e Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev\n\u003e",
"sig": "651efcd5a0b2c94eca5dfae4473ff45a6efe191be93d0bebdf326ed0d9721729449d9da582e0ea1fb07484a1f2864696b521ec1da8c343c2d73cdfa655104948"
}