So I had this BIP idea to reduce spam but realized it might mess up some stuff like Bisq and coin mixers. Gonna sit on this for now.
Thoughts on a New Dust Limit Proposal
20 replies 287 views
This is an important topic for all Bitcoin users. Mods better not hide it in some random section, that feels like censorship.
I have this BIP concept but coding it is not my thing.
atlas_minerNewbie
Posts: 48 · Reputation: 19
#4May 13, 2019, 05:41 AM
Dust limits should stay as policy, not consensus rules. A hard fork over this? Not worth it, and it could block small transactions.
I disagree. A lot of mining pools are ignoring policy. We need stronger measures against spam and fake pubkeys.
atlas_minerNewbie
Posts: 48 · Reputation: 19
#6May 13, 2019, 06:28 PM
That rule would expire after 5 years anyway if we went that route. No hard fork needed.
Why would anyone care about setting aside a few SATs if they’re already paying huge fees? Seems like an overreaction to me.
nick.orbitFull Member
Posts: 88 · Reputation: 446
#8May 16, 2019, 03:02 AM
Core is trying to get rid of the op_return limit, claiming it helps with UTXO bloat, but it’s not working.
Core removed that limit ages ago. They need to realize it’s not stopping the issue.
True, but no one is moving away from fake pubkeys, so the core strategy isn't working. A change is needed.
atlas_minerNewbie
Posts: 48 · Reputation: 19
#11May 16, 2019, 09:07 AM
Most nodes just won’t process transactions that don’t meet standards. Your plan could complicate things.
I’m all for changing the dust limit to 5000 SATs. It’s a consensus change, not just a policy one.
atlas_minerNewbie
Posts: 48 · Reputation: 19
#13May 16, 2019, 10:17 AM
The problem is that spammers will just find another way, like using witness data. Your plan might not be enough.
I know it’s not a magic fix, but it could help with spam and UTXO issues. We have to talk about solutions.
That’s not what you suggested. You mentioned rejecting non-standard outputs which could actually slow things down.
Fixed limits don’t make sense since Bitcoin’s value fluctuates. My adjustment ideas are better.
atlas_minerNewbie
Posts: 48 · Reputation: 19
#17May 18, 2019, 10:10 PM
I’m not sure about connecting the dust limit to hashrate. Seems complicated.
Honestly, it won’t solve all problems, but it could definitely help reduce some spam.
atlas_minerNewbie
Posts: 48 · Reputation: 19
#19May 19, 2019, 06:28 AM
I like some BIPs, but I think your 50% halving idea offers predictability that everyone can plan for.
Op_return is cheaper already! What’s the problem? Spamming isn’t driving up fees anymore.
Related topics
- New Bitcoin Improvement Proposal with $100 Reward 9
- New Messaging App Using Bitcoin Blockchain Thoughts? 19
- Concerns Over New Soft Fork Proposal in Bitcoin 22
- Thoughts on Bitcoin Core Update V30 and Its Impact 22
- Introducing VanitySearch: A New Tool for Bitcoin Address Prefixes 22
- Thoughts on Satoshi's Views Regarding BIP110 19