Re: Removing the Dust Limit

Re: Removing the Dust Limit
2021-08-08 21:14 ` Matt Corallo
  
From: Jeremy @ 2021-08-08 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: lightning-dev, Bitcoin development mailing list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1221 bytes --]

We should remove the dust limit from Bitcoin. Five reasons:

1) it's not our business what outputs people want to create
2) dust outputs can be used in various authentication/delegation smart
contracts
3) dust sized htlcs in lightning (
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/46730/can-you-send-amounts-that-would-typically-be-considered-dust-through-the-light)
force channels to operate in a semi-trusted mode which has implications
(AFAIU) for the regulatory classification of channels in various
jurisdictions; agnostic treatment of fund transfers would simplify this
(like getting a 0.01 cent dividend check in the mail)
4) thinly divisible colored coin protocols might make use of sats as value
markers for transactions.
5) should we ever do confidential transactions we can't prevent it without
compromising privacy / allowed transfers

The main reasons I'm aware of not allow dust creation is that:

1) dust is spam
2) dust fingerprinting attacks

1 is (IMO) not valid given the 5 reasons above, and 2 is preventable by
well behaved wallets to not redeem outputs that cost more in fees than they
are worth.

cheers,

jeremy

--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3569 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-08-08 18:52 Jeremy

  2021-08-08 21:41   ` Oleg Andreev
  
From: Matt Corallo @ 2021-08-08 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeremy, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion, lightning-dev

If it weren't for the implications in changing standardness here, I think we should consider increasing the dust limit 
instead.

The size of the UTXO set is a fundamental scalability constraint of the system. In fact, with proposals like 
assume-utxo/background history sync it is arguably *the* fundamental scalability constraint of the system. Today's dust 
limit is incredibly low - its based on a feerate of only 3 sat/vByte in order for claiming the UTXO to have *any* value, 
not just having enough value to be worth bothering. As feerates have gone up over time, and as we expect them to go up 
further, we should be considering drastically increasing the 3 sat/vByte basis to something more like 20 sat/vB.

Matt

On 8/8/21 14:52, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> We should remove the dust limit from Bitcoin. Five reasons:
> 
> 1) it's not our business what outputs people want to create

It is precisely our business - the costs are born by us, not the creator. If someone wants to create outputs which don't 
make sense to spend, they can do so using OP_RETURN, since they won't spend it anyway.

> 2) dust outputs can be used in various authentication/delegation smart contracts

So can low-value-but-enough-to-be-worth-spending-when-you're-done-with-them outputs.

> 3) dust sized htlcs in lightning 
> (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/46730/can-you-send-amounts-that-would-typically-be-considered-dust-through-the-light 
> <https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/46730/can-you-send-amounts-that-would-typically-be-considered-dust-through-the-light>) 
> force channels to operate in a semi-trusted mode which has implications (AFAIU) for the regulatory classification of 
> channels in various jurisdictions; agnostic treatment of fund transfers would simplify this (like getting a 0.01 cent 
> dividend check in the mail)

This is unrelated to the consensus dust limit. This is related to the practical question about the value of claiming an 
output. Again, the appropriate way to solve this instead of including spendable dust outputs would be an OP_RETURN 
output (though I believe this particular problem is actually better solved elsewhere in the lightning protocol).

> 4) thinly divisible colored coin protocols might make use of sats as value markers for transactions.

These schemes can and should use values which make them economical to spend. The whole *point* of the dust limit is to 
encourage people to use values which make sense economically to "clean up" after they're done with them. If people want 
to use outputs which they will not spend/"clean up" later, they should be using OP_RETURN.

> 5) should we ever do confidential transactions we can't prevent it without compromising privacy / allowed transfers

This is the reason the dust limit is not a *consensus* limit. If and when CT were to happen we can and would relax the 
standardness rules around the dust limit to allow for CT.

> 
> The main reasons I'm aware of not allow dust creation is that:
> 
> 1) dust is spam
> 2) dust fingerprinting attacks

3) The significant costs to every miner and full node operator.


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-08-08 21:14 ` Matt Corallo

  
From: Oleg Andreev @ 2021-08-08 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matt Corallo, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion;  lightning-dev

I agree with Jeremy. Dust limit works due to design accident: that outputs are not encrypted. But outputs are private business and the real issue is only the cost of utxo set storage born by every user. There are two ways to address this:

1) either make ppl pay for renting that storage (which creates a ton of problems of its own)
2) or make storage extremely cheap so it remains cheap at any scale. This is perfectly solved by Utreexo.

But looking at the private data because you can is a hack that creates issues of its own.

> On 9 Aug 2021, at 00:16, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> ﻿If it weren't for the implications in changing standardness here, I think we should consider increasing the dust limit instead.
> 
> The size of the UTXO set is a fundamental scalability constraint of the system. In fact, with proposals like assume-utxo/background history sync it is arguably *the* fundamental scalability constraint of the system. Today's dust limit is incredibly low - its based on a feerate of only 3 sat/vByte in order for claiming the UTXO to have *any* value, not just having enough value to be worth bothering. As feerates have gone up over time, and as we expect them to go up further, we should be considering drastically increasing the 3 sat/vByte basis to something more like 20 sat/vB.
> 
> Matt
> 
>> On 8/8/21 14:52, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> We should remove the dust limit from Bitcoin. Five reasons:
>> 1) it's not our business what outputs people want to create
> 
> It is precisely our business - the costs are born by us, not the creator. If someone wants to create outputs which don't make sense to spend, they can do so using OP_RETURN, since they won't spend it anyway.
> 
>> 2) dust outputs can be used in various authentication/delegation smart contracts
> 
> So can low-value-but-enough-to-be-worth-spending-when-you're-done-with-them outputs.
> 
>> 3) dust sized htlcs in lightning (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/46730/can-you-send-amounts-that-would-typically-be-considered-dust-through-the-light <https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/46730/can-you-send-amounts-that-would-typically-be-considered-dust-through-the-light>) force channels to operate in a semi-trusted mode which has implications (AFAIU) for the regulatory classification of channels in various jurisdictions; agnostic treatment of fund transfers would simplify this (like getting a 0.01 cent dividend check in the mail)
> 
> This is unrelated to the consensus dust limit. This is related to the practical question about the value of claiming an output. Again, the appropriate way to solve this instead of including spendable dust outputs would be an OP_RETURN output (though I believe this particular problem is actually better solved elsewhere in the lightning protocol).
> 
>> 4) thinly divisible colored coin protocols might make use of sats as value markers for transactions.
> 
> These schemes can and should use values which make them economical to spend. The whole *point* of the dust limit is to encourage people to use values which make sense economically to "clean up" after they're done with them. If people want to use outputs which they will not spend/"clean up" later, they should be using OP_RETURN.
> 
>> 5) should we ever do confidential transactions we can't prevent it without compromising privacy / allowed transfers
> 
> This is the reason the dust limit is not a *consensus* limit. If and when CT were to happen we can and would relax the standardness rules around the dust limit to allow for CT.
> 
>> The main reasons I'm aware of not allow dust creation is that:
>> 1) dust is spam
>> 2) dust fingerprinting attacks
> 
> 3) The significant costs to every miner and full node operator.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-08-09 11:58 ` Karl
  
From: Prayank @ 2021-08-09 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: lf-lists;  Bitcoin Dev, lightning-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 856 bytes --]

> As feerates have gone up over time, and as we expect them to go up further, we should be considering drastically increasing the 3 sat/vByte basis to something more like 20 sat/vB.

I have no opinion on changing or removing dust limit. However, fee rates are not going up. Yes, we expect them to go up and miners revenue from fees as well. Although, fees/day (in terms of BTC) has been decreasing in each cycle. Fee rates have been ranging between 1 sat/vByte to 200-300 sat/vByte, regularly reset to 1-5 sat/vByte and very low since long time now except when hash rate went down.

Fees per MB since 2016: https://i.imgur.com/XEkkf99.png 

Highest in this cycle on April 19 2021: 2.5 BTC
Highest in previous cycle on December 18 2017: 10 BTC

It stays low all the time except few days in each cycle.

-- 
Prayank
 
A3B1 E430 2298 178F


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3711 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-08-09 10:25 [bitcoin-dev] Removing the Dust Limit Prayank

  
From: Karl @ 2021-08-09 11:58 UTC ( / )
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion;  lightning-dev



Why would removing the dust limit impact decentralisation of mining if
miners can reconfigure the dust limit for their mined blocks?
From: vjudeu @ 2022-03-12 13:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeremy, lightning-dev, Bitcoin development mailing list

> We should remove the dust limit from Bitcoin.

Any node operator can do that. Just put "dustrelayfee=0.00000000" in your bitcoin.conf.

And there is more: you can also conditionally allow free transactions:

mintxfee=0.00000001
minrelaytxfee=0.00000000
blockmintxfee=0.00000000

Then, when using getblocktemplate you will get transactions with the highest fees first anyway, and you include cheap or free transactions in the end, if there will be enough room for them.

So, all of those settings are in the hands of node operators, there is no need to change the source code, all you need is to convince nodes to change their settings.


On 2021-08-08 20:53:28 user Jeremy via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
We should remove the dust limit from Bitcoin. Five reasons:


1) it's not our business what outputs people want to create
2) dust outputs can be used in various authentication/delegation smart contracts
3) dust sized htlcs in lightning (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/46730/can-you-send-amounts-that-would-typically-be-considered-dust-through-the-light) force channels to operate in a semi-trusted mode which has implications (AFAIU) for the regulatory classification of channels in various jurisdictions; agnostic treatment of fund transfers would simplify this (like getting a 0.01 cent dividend check in the mail)
4) thinly divisible colored coin protocols might make use of sats as value markers for transactions.
5) should we ever do confidential transactions we can't prevent it without compromising privacy / allowed transfers


The main reasons I'm aware of not allow dust creation is that:


1) dust is spam
2) dust fingerprinting attacks


1 is (IMO) not valid given the 5 reasons above, and 2 is preventable by well behaved wallets to not redeem outputs that cost more in fees than they are worth.


cheers,


jeremy




 permalink raw reply	[|nested]