<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1q86n5vtxkwerzwfqza3hwls8pl8764244464talfqy2vpj0qaz6q38qwta</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1q86n5vtxkwerzwfqza3hwls8pl8764244464talfqy2vpj0qaz6q38qwta</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2021-08-08&#xA;📝 Original message:&#xA;We should remove the dust limit from Bitcoin. Five reasons:&#xA;&#xA;1) it&#39;s not our business what outputs people want to create&#xA;2) dust outputs can be used in various authentication/delegation smart&#xA;contracts&#xA;3) dust sized htlcs in lightning (&#xA;https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/46730/can-you-send-amounts-that-would-typically-be-considered-dust-through-the-light)&#xA;force channels to operate in a semi-trusted mode which has implications&#xA;(AFAIU) for the regulatory classification of channels in various&#xA;jurisdictions; agnostic treatment of fund transfers would simplify this&#xA;(like getting a 0.01 cent dividend check in the mail)&#xA;4) thinly divisible colored coin protocols might make use of sats as value&#xA;markers for transactions.&#xA;5) should we ever do confidential transactions we can&#39;t prevent it without&#xA;compromising privacy / allowed transfers&#xA;&#xA;The main reasons I&#39;m aware of not allow dust creation is that:&#xA;&#xA;1) dust is spam&#xA;2) dust fingerprinting attacks&#xA;&#xA;1 is (IMO) not valid given the 5 reasons above, and 2 is preventable by&#xA;well behaved wallets to not redeem outputs that cost more in fees than they&#xA;are worth.&#xA;&#xA;cheers,&#xA;&#xA;jeremy&#xA;&#xA;--&#xA;@JeremyRubin &lt;https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin&gt;&#xA;&lt;https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin&gt;&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20210808/c022237a/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>