{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1q86n5vtxkwerzwfqza3hwls8pl8764244464talfqy2vpj0qaz6q38qwta","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1q86n5vtxkwerzwfqza3hwls8pl8764244464talfqy2vpj0qaz6q38qwta","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2021-08-08\n📝 Original message:\nWe should remove the dust limit from Bitcoin. Five reasons:\n\n1) it's not our business what outputs people want to create\n2) dust outputs can be used in various authentication/delegation smart\ncontracts\n3) dust sized htlcs in lightning (\nhttps://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/46730/can-you-send-amounts-that-would-typically-be-considered-dust-through-the-light)\nforce channels to operate in a semi-trusted mode which has implications\n(AFAIU) for the regulatory classification of channels in various\njurisdictions; agnostic treatment of fund transfers would simplify this\n(like getting a 0.01 cent dividend check in the mail)\n4) thinly divisible colored coin protocols might make use of sats as value\nmarkers for transactions.\n5) should we ever do confidential transactions we can't prevent it without\ncompromising privacy / allowed transfers\n\nThe main reasons I'm aware of not allow dust creation is that:\n\n1) dust is spam\n2) dust fingerprinting attacks\n\n1 is (IMO) not valid given the 5 reasons above, and 2 is preventable by\nwell behaved wallets to not redeem outputs that cost more in fees than they\nare worth.\n\ncheers,\n\njeremy\n\n--\n@JeremyRubin \u003chttps://twitter.com/JeremyRubin\u003e\n\u003chttps://twitter.com/JeremyRubin\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20210808/c022237a/attachment.html\u003e"}