If u allow me to discuss,,, I previously suggested storing dust UTXOS in a separate Merkle tree or strucutre in general if we are talking about the original set. I'm a kind of person who doesn't like to throw any thing; if it's not needed now keep it in the basement for example. So, if dust UTXOS making a burden keep them in secondary storage, where in such cases u can verify then delete them.
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021, 06:52 ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Good morning e, > > > mostly thinking out loud > > > > suppose there is a "lightweight" node: > > > > 1. ignores utxo's below the dust limit > > 2. doesn't validate dust tx > > 3. still validates POW, other tx, etc. > > > > these nodes could possibly get forked - accepting a series of valid, > > mined blocks where there is an invalid but ignored dust tx, however > > this attack seems every bit as expensive as a 51% attack > > How would such a node treat a transaction that spends multiple dust UTXOs > and creates a single non-dust UTXO out of them (after fees)? > Is it valid (to such a node) or not? > > I presume from #1 it never stores dust UTXOs, so the node cannot know if > the UTXO being spent by such a tx is spending dust, or trying to spend an > already-spent TXO, or even inventing a TXO out of `/dev/random`. > > Regards, > ZmnSCPxj > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
