Author: Ruben Somsen 2021-12-08 22:51:50
Published on: 2021-12-08T22:51:50+00:00
Ruben and Jeremy were discussing the possibility of 0 sat outputs entering the mempool and not being spent. Jeremy argued that this is not a big problem as long as the output is eventually spent, even if another transaction with a higher fee rate enters the mempool first. Ruben agreed but added that it is possible for a user to unintentionally behave in a way that causes the 0 sat output to not be spent. He outlined a scenario where another output gets spent at a higher fee rate, the transaction spending the 0 sat output does not make it into the block due to lower fees, and the user invalidates the transaction spending from the 0 sat output. Ruben questioned whether this scenario is acceptable.Jeremy suggested that if it is more costly to intentionally keep the 0 sat output than to create a dust output, users should opt for the latter. He also proposed the idea of a UTXO with drop semantics, which would expire and become unspendable if not spent in the block it was created. This could be used for 0 value outputs that are only meant to attach fees in the mempool and could be treated like an OP_RETURN otherwise. Two cases could be added for this: a bare segwit version and one equivalent to Taproot. While Ruben acknowledged the potential benefits of this solution, he noted that it may require a consensus change.
Updated on: 2023-06-03T06:48:50.314976+00:00