Published on: 2022-02-13T13:11:18+00:00
The issue of handling the extensive amount of dust created by Alt coins and new protocols is being discussed on the Bitcointalk thread. One suggestion is to divide 1 Satoshi into fractions or accept a UTXO with 0 value, which could be considered non-standard transactions. This idea is referenced in an email from 2016 regarding non-standard transactions.On the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, there is a discussion about addressing the issue of UTXO set size. One proposed solution is to use economic incentives to discourage the creation of new UTXOs. This would involve charging a fee based on bytes and byte weight plus net_utxos and utxo weight. Implementing this through a soft fork could result in a lower block size cap. There is also mention of limiting the block size cap at 0 to avoid guaranteed returns.During this discussion, Billy Tetrud brings up the issue of UTXO set size and suggests using utreexo or another accumulator as a solution. Another member suggests using economic incentives to disincentivize the creation of new UTXOs by charging a fee based on transaction size and number of UTXOs created. This proposal would require lowering the block size cap and may be contentious. It is also important to limit the block size cap at 0 to ensure users are not guaranteed to get back whatever they put into it.There are millions of UTXOs with small amounts of Bitcoin. BitInfoCharts has added a link for dust analysis on their site, allowing users to view the top 100 dustiest Bitcoin addresses. There are also similar cases with smaller numbers of UTXOs. Shymaa suggests that people with holdings below a certain threshold should collect those UTXOs into larger amounts during low fee times. The number of UTXOs below certain thresholds is increasing daily.While it has been suggested to delete or trim low-value UTXOs, this could be considered theft and could destroy useful funds. It may be worth investigating using the amount as a heuristic for deciding what to keep and for how long. Currently, there are no rules mandating minimal fees for transactions, and it is unclear what those rules should be given the uncertainty of fee levels in the future.In another thread on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, there is discussion about lightning network transactions creating dust UTXOs. This adds to the issue of UTXO set size that will need to be addressed. One potential solution is the use of utreexo or another accumulator. Some suggest storing outputs unlikely to be spent off RAM, but others argue against deleting them entirely from the UTXO set as it may be considered theft and could destroy useful funds. Instead, it may be useful to investigate using the amount as a heuristic for deciding what to keep and how long. There is debate over whether archiving non-standard and burned UTXOs should be a standardness or consensus rule.The author of a proposal suggests deleting UTXOs holding small amounts of Bitcoin, along with non-standard and burned UTXOs. This would relieve the system state of a large number of UTXOs and add to the scarcity of Bitcoin. The proposal could be beneficial in the long run as the number of dust UTXOs is expected to increase over time. Further study is needed to determine optimal values for deleting UTXOs at different intervals and thresholds.
Updated on: 2023-08-02T05:34:08.334106+00:00