pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 19h \ parent \ on: Dust Attack explained bitcoin
I thought about this and I understand where the misunderstanding is.
I hope if a future reader finds this they understand this concept better.
I think the exactly scenario on this is poorly documented about the dust attack in general.
As written and described most places, its a redundant attack for the reasons I have specified -- the attacker learns nothing additional. Most write ups seem to treat the dust as a "marker", but we don't need to mark things on transparent blockchains, however, we might want to force a certain broken wallet behavior that links addresses.
How much in practice this wallet behavior manifests is dubious too IMHO due to the uneconomical nature of spending dust. In most cases a wallet with sufficient spendable UTXOs is not going to start digging up old dust from other addresses to stuff into inputs.
The nuance is in combining dust, -- but only from an address with no other associated UTXOs (eg balance is just dust). Consider:
Address A and B, and C. A and B are controlled by the target, and C is a 3rd party seller.
There is UTXO uA and uB. uA is 1m sat. uB is 1m sat.
Attacker dusts A and B and generates new UTXOs uA' and uB' of 546 sat each.
If someone wanted to pay ~2m sat (-fees) to C, the attacker learns nothing additional from inputs (uA+uB+uA'+uB')->C, Likewise for (uA+uB+uA')->C or (uA+uB+uB')->C or (uA+uB)->C. This is what I am referring to, and the most likely combination of UTXOs in wallets in practice.
However, lets say in this scenario uB=0s, eg: balance(B)=546s, and we want to send 1m sat to C.
The wallet would have to calculate the optimal tx as:
(uA+uB')->C
[which would very likely be uneconomical vs including another larger UTXO]
Yes, the attacker is learning that A and B are related, assuming uB was spent early on another unrelated transaction. That would not be apparent from the transaction ledger.
Be careful with dust. You can spend dust from an address safely as long as it only contains the same address as the inputs. eg: (uA+uA')->C.
Or is a one of more dusts to the same address. eg: (uA' + uA'')->C.
The attacker learns nothing.
As long as the dust address is also the 'main funds' address, its just reducing the UTXO set.
Spending unrelated dust is leaking a wallet/key relationship that would not be observable otherwise.
eg: (uA+uB')->C, attacker learns A and B are in the same key set.
Yes, which would be visible on the blockchain. The linking occurs from spending, its nothing to do with the dust. Its a marker that doesn't really add much.
You see the source, and the destination of all sats. If you watch an address (the same as dusting), you learn exactly the same thing you would learn without the dusting.
Yes you can tell! You watch the address and see where the funds go. You learn nothing by dusting that you couldn’t already see.
I really have my doubts about the value of dusting for tx graph discovery.
An adversary already knows the full tx graph, it’s a transparent ledger!
I don’t think one can learn anything you couldn’t already see onchain. You can see where every sat is locked anyway!
I’ve def had had dust on the old addrs. I always do coin control and leave the old utxos. It might have value to see that an old addr was used in the past — but again, transparent ledger and full tx graph. It’s there for all eternity.
The information is going to be consumed from somewhere. People are going to ask AIs about Bitcoin for the next 140 years.
Might as well get your thoughts encoded in popular foundational models. By blocking scraping you are simply removing discoverability of your content.
And then there are things like deep research agents that will go out and find and surface things for humans to read. You could be blocking humans from reading in future too.
This is a sensible ruling. The sanctions were to prevent DPRK from using this protocol. In a traditional financial world this would be easy-ish with good KYC.
The fact U.S. people were blocked by sanctions was a side effect (eg; cannot distinguish between them). But the whole thing was pointless, as DPRK could still use it, of course, and U.S. people were the only ones negatively affected. To acknowledge this reality is quite pragmatic and reflects the reality of decentralized financial code on the Internet today.
I have nuanced views across the spectrum. The right vs left dichotomy is tearing things apart (Lisa)!
I generally don’t agree with BBs beliefs, but I try not to let that influence my judgement of comedy.
Good comedy isn’t left or right.
It pokes fun at anything.
Good comedy teaches you something.
downvote me if you must, but BabylonBee is such unfunny cringe trash.
Where is the joke here?
Oh thats, right, BB never has any actual jokes or deeper meaning.
its like the onion if you removed all the satire, humor, timing and actual issues, and had a simple mind.
I remember this! They were singing songs of diversification of cryptoassets, how it was important to spread risk!
This has to be from about August-September 2017; the "Metal" and "IOTA" entries date it. Listing IOTA under Metal, because IOTA had its ATH in December 2017.
Based on the date of August 1st 2017, i calculated:
What i think this shows is that buying anything but Bitcoin is going to be a losing strategy to just buying the Bitcoin.
I think its an interesting snapshot because these results show XRP doing well, but today is possibly an outlier due to certain public announcements.
This is not an endorsement or recommendation to touch shitcoins. It is to be illustrative that while one might profit in fiat terms, you will not profit in Bitcoin terms. From this portfolio it should be clear optimum strategy would have been to just buy Bitcoin.
Ironically, Dating apps are responsible for the drop off in birthrate, and will ultimately be responsible for the death of our species.
We had a good run
When monopolies on resources manifest in all layers of life in the universe, I really don’t believe “ancap utopia” would be any different.
I’m not offering any solution, let alone communism, ew. There is no solution, we are cooked.
The end state of large scale (whole of society) anarchocapitalism is neofeudalism. Wealthy monopolists can extract wealth far more efficiently, and simply reform as Kings. You see this manifesting as 21st century oligarchies today. “The Rent is due pleb…”.
Without protection from either the state, or smaller voluntary groups that of aligned interests; there is nothing to prevent coercive actions from the economically powerful. The selfishness of the human will always result in oppression.
One legal way would be to elect leaders who remove the laws that require income tax. Or one could remove oneself from that tax jurisdiction.
You can’t avoid income tax via technicality or exploits. It’s not a program, it’s not a smart contract. There is no “one neat trick” that makes the state cry, “oh no, he got us!”.
Ya, we get it. People would pay for garbage collection, as they do under all political systems.
That’s not the issue. The issue is how one structures society to deal with it. Responsibilities. Incentives. Non-Coercion.
With all due respect, Darth, you are not providing arguments of substance here. You keep posting polsci 101 flowcharts. This is not an argument. These flowcharts lack nuance and don’t capture anything I am saying.
Good day Sir, see ya in the next thread.
Ironically, most of these “projects” to establish circular economies within Bitcoin tend to be far more Anarcho-syndicalist than ancap.
You think you wanna be ancap and oppress the plebs, but in reality its going to be the Bezos Musk and Zuck family oppressing your pleb family and decedents forever.
I echo the fuck em all left and right!
But I think the most important distinction is anti-authoritarian. A left-right dichotomy there comes down to who pays for garbage collection, etc.
We have words to communicate concepts with others, and words have definitions.
You are of course welcome to use whatever words you like, even make up new words; but it’s not the fault of others who misunderstand when you go against those words definitions.