Hello, This is not a soft fork, for two reasons:
* Coinbase transactions can only have exactly one input. I don't think there is a particularly good reason for this besides simplicity, but that is the current rule. Allowing a coinbase transaction to additionally also spend certain outputs would require a hardfork. * The outputs being marked as dust are not allowed to be spent by miners. Changing this requires a hardfork as well. Think about it: if this was possible with a softfork, it must mean that doing what you're proposing would *already be legal* today, and thus not need this proposed change in the first place. Softforks can only outlaw formerly legal behavior. Furthermore, I don't really see the point. The proposal requires both a coinbase txin to spend the coin, plus a signature in a separate transaction, in the same block. To pay the miner for the opportunity cost of not including normal transactions with these bytes, the fee for this OP_RETURN output should economically be priced at the block's feerate for the size of the OP_RETURN output *plus* the cost of the coinbase transaction input. Together, they are no smaller (and with witness discount, I suspect larger) than the user just spending their "dust" output, and thus the fee for using this OP_RETURN-based mechanism would be larger than the value of the dust output. -- Pieter On Saturday, March 8th, 2025 at 1:23 PM, Nighttime Satoshi <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear fellow Bitcoin developers, > > I'm excited to share a proposal addressing a long-standing Bitcoin challenge: > economically unviable dust UTXOs. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/w6yVRkZu07vMNHYp483katPNPA5nwFEx-kje8eSpjRl9S6O8rx_ViKi62XlcW2b36SF8dceUXKkBLrmrtvK7RuPd1w1y0iZ4BBP4rSleNcc%3D%40wuille.net.
