📅 Original date posted:2021-10-04
📝 Original message:
> 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.
And sadly that's going to increase with Lightning growth and deployment of
other L2s.
Maybe we could dry-up some policy rules in consensus like the dust limit
one :)
Le lun. 4 oct. 2021 à 11:57, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> a écrit :
> On Monday 04 October 2021 15:09:28 Antoine Riard wrote:
> > Still during August 2021, the Bitcoin Core dust limit was actively
> > discussed on the mailing list. Changes of this dust limit would have
> > affected the ongoing development of the mitigations.
>
> 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.
>
>
> P.S. It'd be nice if someone familiar with these could fill in
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CVEs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20211004/4f3f6154/attachment-0001.html>;
Antoine Riard [ARCHIVE] /
npub1vj…4x8dd
2023-06-09 13:03:58
in reply to nevent1q…swn2
Author Public Key
npub1vjzmc45k8dgujppapp2ue20h3l9apnsntgv4c0ukncvv549q64gsz4x8ddSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-09 13:03:58Event JSON
{
"id": "2e438c53eebd683fcf934bec3e67a126b34857d8d758ba58f6d1142baf9ccc3c",
"pubkey": "6485bc56963b51c9043d0855cca9f78fcbd0ce135a195c3f969e18ca54a0d551",
"created_at": 1686315838,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1d180632202ba667799a8f8e5d81e5c2ea7441ac1cfc58e28276a449e432a17c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"0f7b047f030c863920d6722e96714ab54093c5cef982dec53412a60083a18243",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-10-04\n📝 Original message:\n\u003e The \"dust limit\" is arbitrarily decided by each node, and cannot be\nrelied\nupon for security at all. Expecting it to be a given default value is in\nitself a security vulnerability\n\nReality is that an increasing number of funds are secured by assumptions\naround mempool behavior.\nAnd sadly that's going to increase with Lightning growth and deployment of\nother L2s.\n\nMaybe we could dry-up some policy rules in consensus like the dust limit\none :)\n\n\nLe lun. 4 oct. 2021 à 11:57, Luke Dashjr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e a écrit :\n\n\u003e On Monday 04 October 2021 15:09:28 Antoine Riard wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Still during August 2021, the Bitcoin Core dust limit was actively\n\u003e \u003e discussed on the mailing list. Changes of this dust limit would have\n\u003e \u003e affected the ongoing development of the mitigations.\n\u003e\n\u003e The \"dust limit\" is arbitrarily decided by each node, and cannot be relied\n\u003e upon for security at all. Expecting it to be a given default value is in\n\u003e itself a security vulnerability.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e P.S. It'd be nice if someone familiar with these could fill in\n\u003e https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CVEs\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20211004/4f3f6154/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "1b051e703f0d3d769b2735b8116f442b54739e9084e7a9483ff957fca1ba15e3a0f40b3971523aa0bb50230ec04af82e54925eacab58ac9b01c08d94c30aae92"
}