1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80AACC000D;
Fri, 8 Oct 2021 22:47:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6241560AD2;
Fri, 8 Oct 2021 22:47:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id HVgqntolFrMr; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 22:47:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-40140.protonmail.ch (mail-40140.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.140])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F248E6078B;
Fri, 8 Oct 2021 22:47:24 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2021 22:47:11 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1633733241;
bh=X47zZnASoxFE5XLpeNqd/cyJIvrItrlic2QN4IiqIOk=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=dBOWzsAX92MoF717yIq7YOO9YQXJgDGFNptqmI0GYixZMKRaC5T6RJylBAel80+xF
tGOECm2oBm8FjBjwasLMJ+vB+3sAeIdjSnFIZFB3fLXGfM4sAVQp/IA12bvMHudSVf
d0EIVMdn56R7PlHFeOvprsxJa7y+MyQdk5I0Bs3M=
To: Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille.net>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <R4jC1XUMFSWW9kRbnQJokALtkpD3PMGtgcITeUbKsln6lNEZqxzM4ax9QquWP39jwQLXXPfojeEqI5wkuYCsqbepR07r3CAyV70VjNQYzLc=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <MkPutJpff5rqUxXFQrEyHZl6Iz0DfrJU_-BQD-y0El65GQFnj7igVfmWU79fPCtiFztUYl4ofzrqeaN0HFMB45YPErY9rYY7_h1XkuTMfvc=@wuille.net>
References: <CAD5xwhjFBjvkMKev_6HFRuRGcZUi7WjO5d963GNXWN4n-06Pqg@mail.gmail.com>
<20210808215101.wuaidu5ww63ajx6h@ganymede>
<MkPutJpff5rqUxXFQrEyHZl6Iz0DfrJU_-BQD-y0El65GQFnj7igVfmWU79fPCtiFztUYl4ofzrqeaN0HFMB45YPErY9rYY7_h1XkuTMfvc=@wuille.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: lightning-dev <lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] Removing the Dust Limit
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2021 22:47:26 -0000
Good morning Pieter,
> Indeed - UTXO set size is an externality that unfortunately Bitcoin's con=
sensus rules fail to account
> for. Having a relay policy that avoids at the very least economically irr=
ational behavior makes
> perfect sense to me.
>
> It's also not obvious how consensus rules could deal with this, as you do=
n't want consensus rules
> with hardcoded prices/feerates. There are possibilities with designs like=
transactions getting
> a size/weight bonus/penalty, but that's both very hardforky, and hard to =
get right without
> introducing bad incentives.
Why is a +weight malus *very* hardforky?
Suppose a new version of a node adds, say, +20 sipa per output of a transac=
tion (in order to economically discourage the creation of additional output=
s in the UTXO set).
Older versions would see the block as being lower weight than usual, but as=
the consensus rule is "smaller than 4Msipa" they should still accept any b=
lock acceptable to newer versions.
It seems to me that only a -weight bonus is hardforky (but then xref SegWit=
and its -weight bonus on inputs).
I suppose the effect is primarily felt on mining nodes?
Miners might refuse to activate such a fork, as they would see fewer transa=
ctions per block on average?
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
