Author: Jeremy 2021-08-08 22:46:26
Published on: 2021-08-08T22:46:26+00:00
The author of the context believes that increasing the dust limit would have a negative impact on current Lightning Channel operators. They suggest using solutions like Utreexo to accommodate the worst-case scenario under current consensus rules rather than interfering with the user's business. The author is skeptical that 0 value outputs are a real spam problem and suggests that it is a market problem, where those who want them can pay what it is worth. Matt proposes paying for space via an assurance bond, which the author believes is worse than allowing a zero value input.The author does not believe that it is their business what people do, but they are aware of the possibility of CT and using range proofs to exclude dust, which would shrink the anonymity set. The author suggests creating incentives for state clean up, such as setting up a bottle deposit program where miners contribute funds from fee revenue to a "rolling utxo." Miners can prioritize transactions that help their block's ratio without interfering with the user's intent to create whatever outputs they want. The author mentions Gas Token by Daian et al as an example of similar ideas.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T00:44:43.103047+00:00