Will BIP110 confiscate your coin?

[PepeLapiu]

LN is a good option. But layer 2 have little or no support from wallet and services that already support Bitcoin.

You didn't look very hard. There are multiple ways to get an LN wallet. Of course you will have to use a custodial wallet unless you run your own node.

1. Do you have any data that prove "35% of the wallets are still re-using addresses"?

I assimilated the stat a couple of years ago. I don't remember the source. But Chivo wallet here in El Salvador re-uses addresses. Also many exchanges and businesses re-use addresses.
And Eligious mining pool re-use addresses for payouts I think.
Every time you see someone posting a QR code in a video or on a website, it's likely an address re-use unless they are using silent payments. And let's be clear here, nobody does use silent payments.

Than you got Coinbase wallet and pretty much all the wallets that support multiple other shitcoins. I know I have used 2 wallets in the last 3 years that re-used addresses. But I can't recal them right now. Cake maybe?

2. How can you be sure "They are obviously not concerned with privacy"? How about possibility they don't know how advance or accessible is blockchain analysis service?

You are making a mountain out of an ant hill. We are talking about under $12 of sats here. I promis you, chainalisys is not tracking your $12 transactions.

In the end, if we are to scale, we can't accommodate every dickbutt.jpeg, every coffee, every BigMac you want to buy. You would do well to compare on chain with bank wire transfers. Yes, wire transfers are still around $50 each, and they take 1-4 days.

But you don't have to re-use addresses. You can do a multisig for smaller sends, you can add more inputs to increase your change address balance. You can donate smaller amounts to miners, as many wallets already do. You can go on LN of Fedimint, or Liquid, or whatever new LN they might come up with.

When you want to send a bank wire, it will likely cost you $50. The banks are not trying to ban you from buying your coffee with a $50 fee. No, there are other payment methods your bank offers.

Same with bitcoin.

A large part of the world popation would have a problem with my suggested dust limit of $12.00. But do you know what other hurdles are present for those people? Cell phone, or laptop, and a reliable internet connection.

These days you can easily find Android phone below $100. Mobile internet cost per GB is also cheap

Look. We are going to have to compromise if we want bitcoin to scale. There are 8 billion people in the world. And bitcoin can only do around 7 txs/second. Do that math. That is one transaction per person every 36 years. And you still desperately want to hang on to the ability to send and receive $12 on chain?

A world wide adoption doesn't allow $12 transactions for everyone every day on chain.

Think about it. 16,800 sats is the price of a BigMac. Wiith 605,000 transactions per day on chain, if each person does just 1 transaction per day, we can't serve anything bigger than a large 2 million population city like Lima, Peru, or Brussels, Belgium,  or Havana, Cuba, or Zaragoza, Spain.

And that is with only one transaction per day per person.

Do you understand the scale or the problem here? Do you understand that fighting spam is a scaling problem? Do you understand we can't be buying every BigMac on chain, if we want bitcoin to reach it's goal of world wide adoption?

[ABCbits]

LN is a good option. But layer 2 have little or no support from wallet and services that already support Bitcoin.

You didn't look very hard. There are multiple ways to get an LN wallet. Of course you will have to use a custodial wallet unless you run your own node.

I just realized i mistyped it, it should be "But other layer 2", not "But layer 2". By other layer 2, i mean Liquid network, Rootstock or others.

2. How can you be sure "They are obviously not concerned with privacy"? How about possibility they don't know how advance or accessible is blockchain analysis service?

You are making a mountain out of an ant hill. We are talking about under $12 of sats here. I promis you, chainalisys is not tracking your $12 transactions.

That's naive, even free analysis service such as https://www.walletexplorer.com/ automatically analysis all address/TX. Although i expect TX with higher value would receive more attention. https://www.walletexplorer.com/txid/779aa9609447811549152ed0abcef374aa99e7300e6019eb9f5a09ae86e51fd9 is the example of manager sending payment for review campaign.

[PepeLapiu]

I just realized i mistyped it, it should be "But other layer 2", not "But layer 2". By other layer 2, i mean Liquid network, Rootstock or others.

So your point is that my idea of increasing the dust limit is a bad idea because some L2's are well supported, and some others are not so well supported? That makes no sense.

2. How can you be sure "They are obviously not concerned with privacy"? How about possibility they don't know how advance or accessible is blockchain analysis service?

You are making a mountain out of an ant hill. We are talking about under $12 of sats here. I promis you, chainalisys is not tracking your $12 transactions.

That's naive, even free analysis service such as https://www.walletexplorer.com/ automatically analysis all address/TX.

With my proposed raise of the dust limit, smaller re-used addresses would be bad for privacy. And people would be incentivized to move to L2's for small, more private spends.

In the end, on chain is horrible for privacy with every single tx being analyzed and surveiled. Making small spends less private, more complicated, and more expensive would push more people to use LN. And that us a net benefit for scaling, privacy, and efficiency.

Attempting to facilitate smaller $12 spends on chain is not a good idea in the long run. That's like complaining to your bank about the $50 bank wire fee for your $12 BigMac purchase. Don't use bank wires for smaller spends, dumb shit!

(...)

Here is how backwards the coretard slop really is.

During the spam crazes, miner fees climb up. In fact at the last halvening, we saw runes cause fees to go to above $100 for weeks.
I didn't see the coretards worried about the poor bitcoiners who could not afford to send a $10 tx at that time. But you suddenly care about the poor when spam mitigation is proposed.

Selective outrage only applies when anti-spam is concerned but not when spam is concerned.

When Luke proposed an ordinal filter a few years ago, that would have reduced the UTXO ser bloat and dust UTXOs. But the coretards were not worrier about that than. They only got worried about UTXO set bloat and dust outputs when it was time to blow up a spam filter.

Selective outrage only applies when anti-spam is concerned but not when spam is concerned.

The coretards are now claiming that the only reason for BIP110 to do preferencial peering is to push for a hard fork. Even though the word "soft fork" is part of the RDTS acronym.
But when it comes to LibreRelay and core (both of which are spamware) the coretards find all sorts of justifications for preferential peering, and even going as far as maintain an actual black list of nodes to block.

Selective outrage strikes again. Preferencial peeringbonly means a planned hard fork, but only when BIP110 does it, not in any other cases when it's about promoting spam.