Coretard slop. Keep claiming filters don't work, are meaningless, or that they are censorship. That way you justify core 30 and you encourage core to blow up more filrers. This is the typical coretard slop: "The fees are the only filter we need." If you don't take the problem seriously, any drawback becomes unacceptable to you, no matter how small. The drawbacks of a raised dust limit would be very minimal. It would make spends under the dust limit more complicated, but still possible. And LN would better serve small payments in the long run anayways. The other drawback would be that any amount of SATs you have that close or under the dust limit would be hard to spend. You'd have to wait until the dust limit gets lowered, or top up your balance with more coin. Given that on chain is not optimal for small payments and we already have a much better alternative for small payments, those drawbacks are complete reasonable. My raised dust limit idea would make an exception for a change address that would re-use an input. And you object to that because you think it compromises your privacy. I promise you, no 3 letter agency will blow up your front door over a <5000 sats re-used address. And that exception was not put for privacy minded ones to use. It's put in for the 35% of wallets that still re-use the same address over and over. I don't agree with that practice, but this is the world I live in, not the world I chose.
Coretard slop. Keep claiming filters don't work, are meaningless, or that they are censorship. That way you justify core 30 and you encourage core to blow up more filrers. This is the typical coretard slop: "The fees are the only filter we need." If you don't take the problem seriously, any drawback becomes unacceptable to you, no matter how small. The drawbacks of a raised dust limit would be very minimal. It would make spends under the dust limit more complicated, but still possible. And LN would better serve small payments in the long run anayways. The other drawback would be that any amount of SATs you have that close or under the dust limit would be hard to spend. You'd have to wait until the dust limit gets lowered, or top up your balance with more coin. Given that on chain is not optimal for small payments and we already have a much better alternative for small payments, those drawbacks are complete reasonable. My raised dust limit idea would make an exception for a change address that would re-use an input. And you object to that because you think it compromises your privacy. I promise you, no 3 letter agency will blow up your front door over a <5000 sats re-used address. And that exception was not put for privacy minded ones to use. It's put in for the 35% of wallets that still re-use the same address over and over. I don't agree with that practice, but this is the world I live in, not the world I chose.

Coretard slop. Keep claiming filters don't work, are meaningless, or that they are censorship. That way you justify core 30 and you encourage core to blow up more filrers. This is the typical coretard slop: "The fees are the only filter we need." If you don't take the problem seriously, any drawback becomes unacceptable to you, no matter how small. The drawbacks of a raised dust limit would be very minimal. It would make spends under the dust limit more complicated, but still possible. And LN would better serve small payments in the long run anayways. The other drawback would be that any amount of SATs you have that close or under the dust limit would be hard to spend. You'd have to wait until the dust limit gets lowered, or top up your balance with more coin. Given that on chain is not optimal for small payments and we already have a much better alternative for small payments, those drawbacks are complete reasonable. My raised dust limit idea would make an exception for a change address that would re-use an input. And you object to that because you think it compromises your privacy. I promise you, no 3 letter agency will blow up your front door over a <5000 sats re-used address. And that exception was not put for privacy minded ones to use. It's put in for the 35% of wallets that still re-use the same address over and over. I don't agree with that practice, but this is the world I live in, not the world I chose.

Coretard slop. Keep claiming filters don't work, are meaningless, or that they are censorship. That way you justify core 30 and you encourage core to blow up more filrers. This is the typical coretard slop: "The fees are the only filter we need." If you don't take the problem seriously, any drawback becomes unacceptable to you, no matter how small. The drawbacks of a raised dust limit would be very minimal. It would make spends under the dust limit more complicated, but still possible. And LN would better serve small payments in the long run anayways. The other drawback would be that any amount of SATs you have that close or under the dust limit would be hard to spend. You'd have to wait until the dust limit gets lowered, or top up your balance with more coin. Given that on chain is not optimal for small payments and we already have a much better alternative for small payments, those drawbacks are complete reasonable. My raised dust limit idea would make an exception for a change address that would re-use an input. And you object to that because you think it compromises your privacy. I promise you, no 3 letter agency will blow up your front door over a <5000 sats re-used address. And that exception was not put for privacy minded ones to use. It's put in for the 35% of wallets that still re-use the same address over and over. I don't agree with that practice, but this is the world I live in, not the world I chose.