If u allow me to discuss,,,

I previously suggested storing dust UTXOS in a separate Merkle tree or strucutre in general if we are talking about the original set.

I'm a kind of person who doesn't like to throw any thing; if it's not needed now keep it in the basement for example.

So, if dust UTXOS making a burden keep them in secondary storage, where in such cases u can verify then delete them.

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021, 06:52 ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Good morning e,

> mostly thinking out loud
>
> suppose there is a "lightweight" node:
>
> 1. ignores utxo's below the dust limit
> 2. doesn't validate dust tx
> 3. still validates POW, other tx, etc.
>
> these nodes could possibly get forked - accepting a series of valid,
> mined blocks where there is an invalid but ignored dust tx, however
> this attack seems every bit as expensive as a 51% attack

How would such a node treat a transaction that spends multiple dust UTXOs and creates a single non-dust UTXO out of them (after fees)?
Is it valid (to such a node) or not?

I presume from #1 it never stores dust UTXOs, so the node cannot know if the UTXO being spent by such a tx is spending dust, or trying to spend an already-spent TXO, or even inventing a TXO out of `/dev/random`.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev