* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Take 2: Removing the Dust Limit
@ 2022-01-21 12:16 shymaa arafat
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: shymaa arafat @ 2022-01-21 12:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1229 bytes --]
Dear Sir,
Regarding your message
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-December/019636.html
Specifically the part
*"Right now, lightning anchor outputs use a 330 sats amount. Each
commitment*
*transaction has two such outputs, and only one of them is spent"*
I was wondering *is there a way to distinguish those 2 dust UTXOs?*
I mean does(or could) the protocol force the user to always spend the first
not any of them at random?
-My point is to distinguish between them when inserted in the UTXO set to
know in advance which will be spent so fast in the next transaction, and
which is gonna stay there for a while?
-If you look at the number of addresses holding ≤1$ here (by subtracting
total from >1$), you would find it doesn't change very much with days
https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html
-Meaning not that just official dust value, but values ≤1$ are rarely spent
unless one forced to. I always had the idea of storing them separately
(along with non-standard & burned ones at least from public addresses,
these should be separated too as they're not expected be spent ever)
.
So the answer may make a difference,
Thank you
Shymaa M Arafat
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2003 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [bitcoin-dev] Take 2: Removing the Dust Limit
@ 2021-12-08 1:28 Jeremy
2021-12-08 8:34 ` Bastien TEINTURIER
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jeremy @ 2021-12-08 1:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bitcoin development mailing list; +Cc: lightning-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1957 bytes --]
Bitcoin Devs (+cc lightning-dev),
Earlier this year I proposed allowing 0 value outputs and that was shot
down for various reasons, see
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-August/019307.html
I think that there can be a simple carve out now that package relay is
being launched based on my research into covenants from 2017
https://rubin.io/public/pdfs/multi-txn-contracts.pdf.
Essentially, if we allow 0 value outputs BUT require as a matter of policy
(or consensus, but policy has major advantages) that the output be used as
an Intermediate Output (that is, in order for the transaction to be
creating it to be in the mempool it must be spent by another tx) with the
additional rule that the parent must have a higher feerate after CPFP'ing
the parent than the parent alone we can both:
1) Allow 0 value outputs for things like Anchor Outputs (very good for not
getting your eltoo/Decker channels pinned by junk witness data using Anchor
Inputs, very good for not getting your channels drained by at-dust outputs)
2) Not allow 0 value utxos to proliferate long
3) It still being valid for a 0 value that somehow gets created to be spent
by the fee paying txn later
Just doing this as a mempool policy also has the benefits of not
introducing any new validation rules. Although in general the IUTXO concept
is very attractive, it complicates mempool :(
I understand this may also be really helpful for CTV based contracts (like
vault continuation hooks) as well as things like spacechains.
Such a rule -- if it's not clear -- presupposes a fully working package
relay system.
I believe that this addresses all the issues with allowing 0 value outputs
to be created for the narrow case of immediately spendable outputs.
Cheers,
Jeremy
p.s. why another post today? Thank Greg
https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin/status/1468390561417547780
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5392 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Take 2: Removing the Dust Limit
2021-12-08 1:28 Jeremy
@ 2021-12-08 8:34 ` Bastien TEINTURIER
2021-12-08 17:18 ` Jeremy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Bastien TEINTURIER @ 2021-12-08 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeremy, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion; +Cc: lightning-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3369 bytes --]
Hi Jeremy,
Right now, lightning anchor outputs use a 330 sats amount. Each commitment
transaction has two such outputs, and only one of them is spent to help the
transaction get confirmed, so the other stays there and bloats the utxo set.
We allow anyone to spend them after a csv of 16 blocks, in the hope that
someone will claim a batch of them when the fees are low and remove them
from the utxo set. However, that trick wouldn't work with 0-value outputs,
as
no-one would ever claim them (doesn't make economical sense).
We actually need to have two of them to avoid pinning: each participant is
able to spend only one of these outputs while the parent tx is unconfirmed.
I believe N-party protocols would likely need N such outputs (not sure).
You mention a change to the carve-out rule, can you explain it further?
I believe it would be a necessary step, otherwise 0-value outputs for
CPFP actually seem worse than low-value ones...
Thanks,
Bastien
Le mer. 8 déc. 2021 à 02:29, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> a écrit :
> Bitcoin Devs (+cc lightning-dev),
>
> Earlier this year I proposed allowing 0 value outputs and that was shot
> down for various reasons, see
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-August/019307.html
>
> I think that there can be a simple carve out now that package relay is
> being launched based on my research into covenants from 2017
> https://rubin.io/public/pdfs/multi-txn-contracts.pdf.
>
> Essentially, if we allow 0 value outputs BUT require as a matter of policy
> (or consensus, but policy has major advantages) that the output be used as
> an Intermediate Output (that is, in order for the transaction to be
> creating it to be in the mempool it must be spent by another tx) with the
> additional rule that the parent must have a higher feerate after CPFP'ing
> the parent than the parent alone we can both:
>
> 1) Allow 0 value outputs for things like Anchor Outputs (very good for not
> getting your eltoo/Decker channels pinned by junk witness data using Anchor
> Inputs, very good for not getting your channels drained by at-dust outputs)
> 2) Not allow 0 value utxos to proliferate long
> 3) It still being valid for a 0 value that somehow gets created to be
> spent by the fee paying txn later
>
> Just doing this as a mempool policy also has the benefits of not
> introducing any new validation rules. Although in general the IUTXO concept
> is very attractive, it complicates mempool :(
>
> I understand this may also be really helpful for CTV based contracts (like
> vault continuation hooks) as well as things like spacechains.
>
> Such a rule -- if it's not clear -- presupposes a fully working package
> relay system.
>
> I believe that this addresses all the issues with allowing 0 value outputs
> to be created for the narrow case of immediately spendable outputs.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeremy
>
> p.s. why another post today? Thank Greg
> https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin/status/1468390561417547780
>
>
> --
> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
> <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7423 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Take 2: Removing the Dust Limit
2021-12-08 8:34 ` Bastien TEINTURIER
@ 2021-12-08 17:18 ` Jeremy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jeremy @ 2021-12-08 17:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bastien TEINTURIER; +Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion, lightning-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1024 bytes --]
Bastien,
The issue is that with Decker Channels you either use SIGHASH_ALL / APO and
don't allow adding outs (this protects against certain RBF pinning on the
root with bloated wtxid data) and have anchor outputs or you do allow them
and then are RBF pinnable (but can have change).
Assuming you use anchor outs, then you really can't use dust-threshold
outputs as it either breaks the ratcheting update validity (if the specific
amount paid to output matters) OR it allows many non-latest updates to
fully drain the UTXO of any value.
You can get around the needing for N of them by having a congestion-control
tree setup in theory; then you only need log(n) data for one bumper, and
(say) 1.25x the data if all N want to bump. This can be a nice trade-off
between letting everyone bump and not. Since these could be chains of
IUTXO, they don't need to carry any weight directly.
The carve out would just be to ensure that CPFP 0 values are known how to
be spent.
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2898 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-01-21 12:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-01-21 12:16 [bitcoin-dev] Take 2: Removing the Dust Limit shymaa arafat
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-12-08 1:28 Jeremy
2021-12-08 8:34 ` Bastien TEINTURIER
2021-12-08 17:18 ` Jeremy
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox