What is a 546 sat UTXO worth?
2518 sats \ 19 comments \ @nullcount 3 Feb bitcoin
Even at 1 sat per vbyte, a single input transaction can cost 200-400 sats to spend
These days, a utxo would need to be about 15,000 sats to be included in a block without being entirely spent as fees.
546 sats45.5%
Depends on the sats (ord, brc20, stamp)18.2%
Less than 546 sats30.3%
Pay me to take it6.1%
33 votes \ poll ended
write
preview
related posts
57 sats \ 0 replies \ @cyberpunk0101 3 Feb
546 Sats = 546 Sats. Maybe if it was sent to a Lightning address some of the bigger routing Nodes could pick up the tab/Mining Fee as a service/good will, Or its basically lost
Any smaller UTXO's that I don't consolidate within the wallet I send to my lightning wallet anyway.
UTXO management needs forward thinking as Number Goes up.
reply
1075 sats \ 7 replies \ @nullcount OP 3 Feb
To the people who vote "546 sats":
Would you also accept 100x 546 sat UTXOs instead of a single 54,600 sat UTXO?
reply
499 sats \ 5 replies \ @supertestnet 3 Feb freebie
Yes, and it is worth noting that you cannot stop someone from paying this way. If someone sends you a transaction containing 100x 546 sat outputs what are you going to do? Call the police, say you've been robbed? No. If they owe you 54,600 sats for something and then they pay it to you in this method, you cannot legitimately claim to have been ripped off. You might say "But I don't want to pay the fees to move those utxos!" And that's fine, but "paying to move utxos" is the system you opted into when you started using bitcoin.
If you received 54,600 sats from someone who owed you 54,600 sats, then you were paid fair and square, unless you have a policy where the customer also has to pay extra to compensate your mining fees for you, or a separate contract that says "and you must agree to pay with utxos exceeding size X or the debt remains unpaid." You can refuse to do any more business with the mean customer, but he paid off his debt. Because 1 sat = 1 sat.
reply
526 sats \ 0 replies \ @petertodd 4 Feb
Yes, and it is worth noting that you cannot stop someone from paying this way. If someone sends you a transaction containing 100x 546 sat outputs what are you going to do? Call the police, say you've been robbed?
This scenario is exactly why legal tender laws usually have restrictions on how much of what denominations you can use to pay. If you try to pay with a few buckets full of pennies, the receiver absolutely can get the law involved on the basis of non-payment.
Paying with 100 546 sat outputs is no different.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @037447d9ca 4 Feb
can you really send 100 different utxos to an address in the same transaction?
reply
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @antic 4 Feb
Yes. Happened today with all those crazy metaverse tokens. The same address got gobs of 420 sat UTXOs. Massive dev fail.
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @antic 4 Feb
Check these outputs:
https://mempool.space/tx/9f8b6f7bd1447afb4c9149457efe1b2e068d316338f6e11ce10bd6cc9fde110a
https://m.stacker.news/14796
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @037447d9ca 4 Feb
LOL what a waste 🤦 0.1BTC in unspendable utxos and 0.05BTC burnt in fees
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @joda 3 Feb
Ha ha touché
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @weaker 4 Feb
The handling fee for moving this dust is higher than the dust itself. It's possible that this dust can no longer move after losing popularity. This equals the total supply of Bitcoins decreasing and the value of other people’s Bitcoins increasing.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @antic 4 Feb
If it’s on a thumb drive, the UXTO is still worth 546 sats. Maybe OpenDime will become practical some day.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Quasianon 4 Feb
UTXO sharing with Opendimes and similar
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @OriginalSize 3 Feb
Probably gone unless it has some external value. That's why I voted for the DEPENDS option. If value leaks into the blockchain, at least we get to save some RAM.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 3 Feb
Its dust
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @joda 3 Feb
There may someday be a dust consolidation mechanism.
reply
20 sats \ 3 replies \ @Murch 3 Feb
It is unlikely that there will ever be a way again to spend UTXOs without a fee as relaying transactions that don't pay fees opens the network up to cheap bandwidth-wasting attacks
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @joda 3 Feb
#407400
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @joda 3 Feb
Maybe a change to allow dust to be sent without fees to a single address that goes to a miner, or a lottery, or a charitable donation.
Hard fork stuff though, so unlikely
reply
116 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 6 Feb
I think you'd find that if you were to flesh out that idea a bit more that it would be difficult to design such a feature without creating DoS attack vectors or going against mining incentives
reply