> > > > no data at all
exactly, which is why a relationship between "cpfp-inclusive outputs" and "fees" makes sense. it's clear that's a good definition of dust, and not too hard to get a working pr up for the network-layer. i get that your node will still route. i get that it would break timestamps, indeed, it would break all non-economic use cases if we made it a consensus change. but that's the point of the discussion. the question is whether breaking all non-economic use cases is the right move, given the game-theory of what underpins bitcoin i'm sad (honestly) to say that it might be it may very well be that bitcoin *cannot* be a "global ledger of all things" in order to remain useful and decentralized, and instead the monetary use case must be it's only goal also, i'm not really advocating for this solution so much as i would like a - rational conversation about the incentives - whether this solution would be an effective enough barrier to keep most non-economic tx off bitcoin obviously it's easy enough to evade if every non-economic user simply keeps enough bitcoin around and sends it back to himself so maybe it's a useless idea? but maybe that's enough of a hassle to stop people (it certainly breaks ordinals, since it can never be 1 sat)
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
