Ok, so 0-value BSV tokens scare me, and so do OP_FALSE/RETURN unspendables. The first question is: Will Nodes be allowed to create their own private dust limits? Will they always have control over whether they allow 0-value tokens or not? Next question, just from thinking about it (no research), how hard would it be if in like 5 years BSV wanted to shift to 128-bit computing, and on top of that how hard would it be to allow decriminalization down below 8 places (to the right of the 1 bitcoin)-- such as maybe 10, 12, 16 decimal places? Just thinking long term here. Lastly, what happens when people try to store long term storage things in a 0-value token or unspendable, and only need to access them once a year or less-- like grandma's home movie collection? If transactions is the ONLY way to collect money for long term storage then eventually 0-value tokens could become a waste-bucket with a magnet attached to it. There's this thing in business called "Adverse selection" and it sorta creates havoc in everything from Spotify subscriptions, poker websites, and maybe BSV too if taken down a seemingly harmless path (at first). I worry that BSV won't have a real value if UTXO-sets are devoid of data/code bc all the valuable stuff is stored in infinite amount of 0-value coins; I worry that makes BSV just a glorified version of btc-- with a slight advantage due to transactions and scale, but ultimately susceptible to attack by a clone chain which doesn't favor these "no-coins". Just really looking for more thought-process here, to hear the support cases for OP_FALSE-RETURN unspendables and 0-value tokens. I'm just not seeing it, altho I agree the dust-limit should be removed in favor of allowing Nodes (the market) to set their OWN lower limits and pruning protocol. Putting the tattoo on my forehead, right or wrong, that right now I'm pro-pruning and pro competitive dust-limit (for Nodes, not a protocol-level dust-limit). Is that crazy? Long-term view: I think thoughtful Nodes setting non-zero market-determined UTXO-set lower limits for transactions and tokens allows BSV to stay deflationary money, and this could be continued forever so long as eventually there's a way to increase the decimal place (after 128-bit systems become cheap/standard of course). It's like an economic version of garbage collection or pollution credits. Bad data will get replaced (via spending the spendables with weak income) with higher income/value data. Thus the BSV tree ALWAYS is getting stronger, and more valuable, and the more valuable and efficient it becomes, he faster, cheaper and more secure BitCoin becomes. Furthermore, there's a fairness to not allowing zero-value coins, no? Then Nodes aren't stuck holding he bag. Very interested to hear your takes.