📅 Original date posted:2021-10-04
📝 Original message:
On Monday 04 October 2021 16:14:20 Antoine Riard wrote:
> > The "dust limit" is arbitrarily decided by each node, and cannot be
> > relied upon for security at all. Expecting it to be a given default value
> > is in itself a security vulnerability
>
> Reality is that an increasing number of funds are secured by assumptions
> around mempool behavior.
In other words, simply not secured.
> And sadly that's going to increase with Lightning growth and deployment of
> other L2s.
L2s shouldn't build on flawed assumptions.
> Maybe we could dry-up some policy rules in consensus like the dust limit
> one :)
No thanks. Not sure that would even help (since policies can always be set to
a higher dust limit than any consensus rule)
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-09 13:03:59
in reply to nevent1q…6jfx
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nPublished at
2023-06-09 13:03:59Event JSON
{
"id": "25eced0ff428a59aba8136e17eb07dd189b778c72ce909cafaad98aff063a13d",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686315839,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1d180632202ba667799a8f8e5d81e5c2ea7441ac1cfc58e28276a449e432a17c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2e438c53eebd683fcf934bec3e67a126b34857d8d758ba58f6d1142baf9ccc3c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6485bc56963b51c9043d0855cca9f78fcbd0ce135a195c3f969e18ca54a0d551"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-10-04\n📝 Original message:\nOn Monday 04 October 2021 16:14:20 Antoine Riard wrote:\n\u003e \u003e The \"dust limit\" is arbitrarily decided by each node, and cannot be\n\u003e \u003e relied upon for security at all. Expecting it to be a given default value\n\u003e \u003e is in itself a security vulnerability\n\u003e\n\u003e Reality is that an increasing number of funds are secured by assumptions\n\u003e around mempool behavior.\n\nIn other words, simply not secured.\n\n\u003e And sadly that's going to increase with Lightning growth and deployment of\n\u003e other L2s.\n\nL2s shouldn't build on flawed assumptions.\n\n\u003e Maybe we could dry-up some policy rules in consensus like the dust limit\n\u003e one :)\n\nNo thanks. Not sure that would even help (since policies can always be set to \na higher dust limit than any consensus rule)",
"sig": "be90ac4da2930240c6cf676687cbff5569dc90e20584383da3b58142d03caf05f86cfcfc8471ed71535ac7849c339facb3a5d3d3f71f98356a839d5324b510b6"
}