Thoughts on a New Dust Limit Proposal

20 replies 287 views
tom51Full Member
Posts: 139 · Reputation: 260
#1May 12, 2019, 08:21 PM
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.
2 Reply Quote Share
mr_apeNewbie
Posts: 170 · Reputation: 35
#2May 12, 2019, 10:24 PM
This is an important topic for all Bitcoin users. Mods better not hide it in some random section, that feels like censorship.
5 Reply Quote Share
tom51Full Member
Posts: 139 · Reputation: 260
#3May 13, 2019, 12:29 AM
I have this BIP concept but coding it is not my thing.
0 Reply Quote Share
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.
2 Reply Quote Share
tom51Full Member
Posts: 139 · Reputation: 260
#5May 13, 2019, 02:46 PM
I disagree. A lot of mining pools are ignoring policy. We need stronger measures against spam and fake pubkeys.
3 Reply Quote Share
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.
0 Reply Quote Share
tom51Full Member
Posts: 139 · Reputation: 260
#7May 13, 2019, 06:54 PM
Why would anyone care about setting aside a few SATs if they’re already paying huge fees? Seems like an overreaction to me.
6 Reply Quote Share
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.
3 Reply Quote Share
tom51Full Member
Posts: 139 · Reputation: 260
#9May 16, 2019, 04:23 AM
Core removed that limit ages ago. They need to realize it’s not stopping the issue.
3 Reply Quote Share
mr_apeNewbie
Posts: 170 · Reputation: 35
#10May 16, 2019, 06:27 AM
True, but no one is moving away from fake pubkeys, so the core strategy isn't working. A change is needed.
4 Reply Quote Share
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.
2 Reply Quote Share
tom51Full Member
Posts: 139 · Reputation: 260
#12May 16, 2019, 09:34 AM
I’m all for changing the dust limit to 5000 SATs. It’s a consensus change, not just a policy one.
3 Reply Quote Share
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.
0 Reply Quote Share
gang2015Member
Posts: 269 · Reputation: 62
#14May 18, 2019, 08:35 AM
I know it’s not a magic fix, but it could help with spam and UTXO issues. We have to talk about solutions.
3 Reply Quote Share
tom51Full Member
Posts: 139 · Reputation: 260
#15May 18, 2019, 01:36 PM
That’s not what you suggested. You mentioned rejecting non-standard outputs which could actually slow things down.
0 Reply Quote Share
alexsatNewbie
Posts: 131 · Reputation: 15
#16May 18, 2019, 05:19 PM
Fixed limits don’t make sense since Bitcoin’s value fluctuates. My adjustment ideas are better.
1 Reply Quote Share
Posts: 48 · Reputation: 19
#17May 18, 2019, 10:10 PM
I’m not sure about connecting the dust limit to hashrate. Seems complicated.
4 Reply Quote Share
tom51Full Member
Posts: 139 · Reputation: 260
#18May 19, 2019, 04:03 AM
Honestly, it won’t solve all problems, but it could definitely help reduce some spam.
1 Reply Quote Share
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.
2 Reply Quote Share
tom51Full Member
Posts: 139 · Reputation: 260
#20May 19, 2019, 10:16 AM
Op_return is cheaper already! What’s the problem? Spamming isn’t driving up fees anymore.
6 Reply Quote Share

Related topics