Good morning Jeremy, > one interesting point that came up at the bitdevs in austin today that favors > remove that i believe is new to this discussion (it was new to me): > > the argument can be reduced to: > > - dust limit is a per-node relay policy. > - it is rational for miners to mine dust outputs given their cost of > maintenance (storing the output potentially forever) is lower than their > immediate reward in fees. > - if txn relaying nodes censor something that a miner would mine, users will > seek a private/direct relay to the miner and vice versa. > - if direct relay to miner becomes popular, it is both bad for privacy and > decentralization. > - therefore the dust limit, should there be demand to create dust at > prevailing mempool feerates, causes an incentive to increase network > centralization (immediately) > > the tradeoff is if a short term immediate incentive to promote network > centralization is better or worse than a long term node operator overhead.
Against the above, we should note that in the Lightning spec, when an output *would have been* created that is less than the dust limit, the output is instead put into fees. https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/03-transactions.md#trimmed-outputs Thus, the existence of a dust limit encourages L2 protocols to have similar rules, where outputs below the dust limit are just given over as fees to miners, so the existence of a dust limit might very well be incentivize-compatible for miners, regardless of centralization effects or not. Regards, ZmnSCPxj _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
