Topic: Bitcoin Dust Address Made Simple (Read 236 times)

Further, unless one of your outputs is an even smaller dust output (which would defeat the whole purpose of trying to use up the dust in the first place), then your third dust input couldn't possibly pay any of the outputs and therefore must be linked to at least one of the other inputs. Combine that with other heuristics which could identify the change output, and you can probably tell that the dust input was entirely unnecessary and definitely not part of a coinjoin.

If you send 3 inputs, one of which is dust, to 3 outputs, it's pretty obvious it's not a coinjoin but just one guy making one transaction.
To make it look like coinjoin, there should be multiple "pairs" of inputs that match the outputs, so you can't tell which output belongs to which input.

Dust on their own might be cost prohibitive to on send (even if the mempool is at or near empty). However,  dust added to other transactions will show up as cojoin transactions and could actually be useful.

I.E. turning two in, three out into three in and three out transactions would mask who sent what both to and from whom.

This also is a bad idea. Because you'd be creating new UTXOs that will remain in all nodes' memory forever without ever being spent. I'd say the initial address (where you had the private key) was better because at least that way assuming you received anything you' be eventually able to spend that output.

The better way, which was also already mentioned, is to use OP_RETURN and give all the satoshis to the miners as fee.

Almost certainly.

Almost certainly not.

If we take the address 1BURNbitcoinBURNbitcoinBURP3vqZJo as an example, working backwards along the process all we can say that is generated from a RIPEMD-160 hash output of 01FB0C820F0995E24AAD95DB98BA96BA28F4AD66. To work out the private key we would first have to reverse RIPEMD-160, then reverse SHA-256, then solved the DLP to get the private key. Alternatively, we would just need to brute force trillions upon trillion upon trillions of private keys until we stumbled on to a collision. Both are so incredibly unlikely as to be safely considered impossible.

Now there's a nice idea, although the usual caveats with Electrum would apply - if you create a single signed transaction spending all your change outputs and send it via your Electrum server to the central server running this service, then which server you are using can link all your change outputs.

Why?  So you can collect it?

Unsure why?
 I though education here was able to create this gem

1B1tco1nDustAddressDotComxxxntn2T

and the redirect takes people to that address on blockchain to send their unwanted dust.

Thank You for posting that link, I ended up using it to create the redirect to 1B1tco1nDustAddressDotComxxxntn2T in order to sooth people from thinking I was begging.

Seeing that people took the vanity address as begging, and that wasn't my motivation. I used 1BURNbitcoinBURNbitcoinBURP3vqZJo as the dust address, which for sure doesn't have a private key. The purpose was to have a place to dispose of bitcoin dust, and to have it easily searched in the search bar.

You would indeed need at least 2 dust inputs to be able to send it.

Thanks, I was looking for that project but couldn't remember the name.

I wouldn't install software for this, but if it can be integrated as an Electrum Plugin, it could actually work!

I really like your idea about creating an actual website for this and Id be happy to have the domain I've bought for the next 10 years to be the website address. PM me and we can work it out, I'm not looking for money or donations. I'm going to use your 1BURNbitcoinBURNbitcoinBURP3vqZJo as the burn address since its one of those addresses without a private key for sure. I think it being a vanity address caused people to feel worrisome that I'd end up spending the bitcoins. 

I have done away with the private key, I suppose I could make one of those addresses that are 1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx if you know what I mean. Which makes me wonder is there a private key to those addresses? could someone get lucky and unlock those bitcoins?

Your suggestion doesn't really solve the problem though. Either I have dust which is too small to send without combining it with another input, in which case I would still have to do that and compromise my privacy to send to this new service, or my dust is large enough to send on its own, in which case I can just do that but send it to a mixer or instant exchanger or something similar. I don't see the use case for a service where I have to send my dust, as I'm either losing my privacy or losing my coins (or both) to use it.

I've spoken before about Peter Todd's Dust B Gone proposal, which would do exactly as you are describing but without the requirement to first compromise your privacy by sending him your dust. Unfortunately, the demand for such a service would be too small that the anonymity set of people using it would also be too small to be useful.

That is a bomb attack, not a dust attack.  

Dust Attack, what it is, why it is dangerous and how to prevent falling to it.

Dust means something small, very tiny and dust attack means very tiny amount of Bitcoin.

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/d3239fcd4ed507b1943ea4fe3cec19fff380d9cfb96d5a3b27bfba549be74a18

Dust in that attack is $0.06, not $6,000.

I used ProofOfBurn, it works from the site.

The last "burp" instead of "burn" was totally a coincidence

I think that this is the "best use" for dust.
Second best is consolidate, if you know what you're doing.


Impressive!
I know that there are available scripts to create proper burn address, I know that all it needs is a string with allowed characters/format and then a checksum, but I've never ran one.
And again, your choice of starting string is impressive 

That's disappointing to say the least. It's not even a website, only a domain forwarder.

What you could (and should) have done, is create your own website that presents the viewer with 3 addresses (1.., 3.. and bc1q..), each generated on the fly and shown only once. That would give each user a unique address to "dispose" of dust, instead of making it very obvious they're using a certain address.
If you'd then add the promise to wait anywhere between 1 and 5 years before moving any of the dust inputs, and promise to only use a random selection of inputs each time, you could actually provide a useful service for getting rid of unwanted dust.
I've thought about creating such a service myself, but decided it's not worth it as barely anyone would use it.

For privacy, it's better to avoid dust. Or burn it. Or add it to an existing transaction from the same address when fees are low. Or freeze the input in your wallet so you never move it.

That's another reason one shouldn't offer such a service.

When fees were high, I've seen many transactions with inputs that weren't even worth the fee it costs to add them. As long as the Max button in for instance Electrum maximizes the input instead of the output, people keep wasting money on fees to move dust.

Here you go
1BURNbitcoinBURNbitcoinBURP3vqZJo

It is a dust address, not a burn address. I think that you've made a confusion.
If it would have been a burn address, your question would have been valid. For a dust address, it's expected that he does have the private key for it.

As expected the address has 0 satoshis in it which shows that people have become a more aware of things in the crypto space.
I see a bitcoin address which someone says is a dust address but unable to prove if it's actually a dust address.
How will we know if you or someone else doesn't hold the private key to this address. What if you have the private key to this address and someday you decide to spend all the coins in this address.
I think what ranochigo said makes more sense if you want to spend your coins as dust instead of simply sending it to some random bitcoin address.

It's also greatly incorrect, as @pooya87 also wrote. This was - by far - not dust, neither counted in Bitcoin, neither counted 4 years ago in US Dollars.



Are you aware that begging is not allowed in this forum?
And if it's not begging, then please tell us how would help me to send you, on my expense, bitcoin dust...

Looks like it's worth receiving dust. A 1000 satoshis today may be worth a lot after 4 years, that sender must have been regretting by now. Looks like a very wasteful way, this wouldn't be a method of choice today.   It would be expensive to send the dust to an address too. I would rather be making those hackers who attempt regret when the 1000 sats will be worth spending.
 
But how about tracking them instead, can you provide that service while you are at it receiving dust?

The term "dust" in bitcoin refers to a very small amount of bitcoin that costs more to send considering the minimum transaction fee. It usually is around 500 satoshi although it can change and has changed with the price.

$6000 today is 0.1343BTC which is far from being "dust", not to mention 4 years ago it still was a considerable amount of bitcoin since in 2017 price of it were between $134 to $2680 and nothing in that range can be considered "dust".

The problem is that if you want to spend those low amounts you are going to pay a lot of money in fees. For this it is often worthwhile to consolidate them into an input when the fees are low as explained in the following thread:

[Sep 2021] Mempool empty! Use this opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs!

One might. But what is exactly the problem in having low ammounts of coin in a wallet adress?Is there a real issue impending from it or just ones OCD.

This is interesting because it gives one to think that as the price goes up, what is dust today may be a respectable amount tomorrow, and therefore if one waits instead of trying to solve the dust problem today, one may find that the problem has solved itself.

I had some dust in my wallet 4 years ago, today its worth 6000$.

If someone were to send you their dust, then there wouldn't be any use for you either. A dust of a dust would mean that it would cost even more for you to spend it.

It is more cost efficient to spend the dust to an OP_return. OP_return can be zero value and smaller in size, you would be able to burn most dusts while making it cost efficient. As opposed to increasing the UTXO bloat for no reason.

I don't see anything special here! You just created a vanity address starting with the word "dust" and a website that redirects to blockchain.com explorer. This does not solve anything at all, let alone dust issue that any user may have.

So basically you are asking people for donations!

The only issue here is that one cannot send dust transactions without the tx including inputs from that address or other addresses. There are ways around this, but not everyone is aware of this and an attempt to send would likely compromise privacy.
Using the lock coin or lock address feature is one of the best alternatives to deal with dust txs.

Perhaps it helps to give a short definition of what a Bitcoin dust is and why it matters. It might help to make people understand the relevance or risk of having a dust in one's wallet and what to make of it or how it could be done away. Perhaps it is also at this point where you introduce your dust address or site and why they are necessary. What specific roles are they to play? Why are they important?

I also don't understand the purpose of you developing this dust address. What is it for and how could we benefit from it? How does it work?

bitcoindustaddress.com

So I recently decided to make a dust address that would be easily accessible to anyone. I even decided to make the investment of buying the domain name of bitcoindustaddress.com to make it a simple search to get to a bitcoin dust address and diminish of the dust that one may have received.

Hopefully this will pick up traction and will become THE universal bitcoin dust address. I have my doubts though lol.