Dust BIP suggestion?

[PepeLapiu]

Disclaimer: This post needs maximum views. It concerns every bitcoin users. I do not wish to have mods move this thread to an other less visible section. Such action would constitute a form of censorship. Thank you

----------------------------------

I have a BIP idea but I don't have the coding skills to submit it myself. I would like to partner up with an interested C++ coder, or you can steal the idea from me if you please. Some credit would be appreciated.

My BIP would propose that the dust limit be raised to 5000 sats at the consensus level for 5 years.

The core team claims that blowing up op_return filter to 1250x it's original limit of 80 bytes was motivated by the UTXO bloat with the hope that arbitrary data attackers would use op_return instead of more harmful fake pubkeys.

But large arbitrary data attackers would have no incentive to move to op_return and lose the Taproot and Segwit discounts.

Raising the dust limit to 5000 SATs would make fake pubkeys more expensive and incentivize fake pubkey attackers towards the less harmful op_return option.

I would personally set the dust limit at a Mich higher minimum, but that could be a harder sell to others. I think 5000 SATs is an acceptable middle ground.

This would make sending small amounts of sats on chain a problem. Especially with the LN network. I think proper in wallet warnings could greatly mitigate this problem.

The reason for the 5 year expiry is because in case of a large price swing up or down, this dust limit could become too restrictive or not restrictive enough in the future.

Alternatively, the dust limit of 5000 SATs could get cut in half at every halvening. Or decrease by say 15% every year or so. Or be affixed to a fixed fiat price.

I find the idea of fixing the dust limit to the price of a BigMac an interesting idea, though I don't know how that could be implemented.6

Anyone interested interested in partnering with me on this? Or steal my BIP idea?

Edit: I also feel that in order to be effective, and to prevent possible work a rounds, this dust limit should apply to both inputs and outputs. Yes, this would make some UTXOs unspenddable until the dust limit is lowered below the UTXO SATs balance. But it would prevent would be attackers of the dust limit.

[pooya87]

My BIP would propose that the dust limit be raised to 5000 sats at the consensus level for 5 years.

Stuff like dust limit is not and must never be a consensus rule. They must remain policy/standard rules.
Not to mention you are basically scheduling a hard for after 5 years because you can add a new "restriction" (ie. rejecting output values less than 5000 as invalid) with a soft fork but you can't remove them without a hard fork.
If we are to have a hard fork it should not be for such a weak rule.

Not to mention that it would make it impossible to use bitcoin for anything worth less than ~$5 and that's assuming price doesn't significantly go up in the next 5 years which we all know is not going to happen (price will shoot up). Also that's a type of censorship itself!

~ would use op_return instead of more harmful fake pubkeys.

There is a much simpler way if to prevent usage of fake pubkeys without needing any fork. All you have to do is write a single function with 5-10 LOC that would verify the pubkeys and reject them a non-standard refusing to relay.
Policy rules have worked for a decade, there is no reason to believe they won't any longer!

[PepeLapiu]

Stuff like dust limit is not and must never be a consensus rule. They must remain policy/standard rules.

I disagree. Large mining pools are now effectively ignoring policy and filters. Policy and filters are oy working when miners are not as centralized as they are right now, and not as corrupt as they are right now.
Policy is too weak right now to deal with fake pubkeys and spam.

Not to mention you are basically scheduling a hard for after 5 years because you can add a new "restriction" (ie. rejecting output values less than 5000 as invalid) with a soft fork but you can't remove them without a hard fork.

False. The rule would automatically expire after 5 years if we use the 5 year way to go about it.

If we are to have a hard fork it should not be for such a weak rule.

Absoluty no hard fork required.

Not to mention that it would make it impossible to use bitcoin for anything worth less than ~$5 and that's assuming price doesn't significantly go up in the next 5 years which we all know is not going to happen (price will shoot up). Also that's a type of censorship itself!

Which is why I offered alternative ways to adjust the dust limit. It could half on every halvening..So at the next halvening, it would decrease to 2500 SATs dust limit, and so on.

Or it could go down by 10-15% every year.

Or it could be tied to the price of a BigMac, but that would be harder to implement. And it assumes McDonalds will always be around.

There is a much simpler way if to prevent usage of fake pubkeys without needing any fork. All you have to do is write a single function with 5-10 LOC that would verify the pubkeys and reject them a non-standard refusing to relay.

Please ellaborate. Because core seems to think they have to be extremely controversial and blow up a spam filter in order to mitigate fake pubkeys.

Policy rules have worked for a decade, there is no reason to believe they won't any longer!

Policy rules are not working anymore, obviously since the chain is full of spam, the UTXO set is blowing up, and services like SlipStream and OpenRelay are expressly used to bypass policy rules. Not to mention core is actively loosening policy rules in the middle of a 4 year long spam attack.