diff options
author | s7r <s7r@sky-ip.org> | 2015-08-08 14:08:10 +0300 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-08-08 11:08:38 +0000 |
commit | e4203ddb5e2110092ce2db2026a55026bace01e6 (patch) | |
tree | c6260b35028317049e7ffb3ded55be59457632bb | |
parent | f20149ac7d387570777ad44bc635065e4719a1ad (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-e4203ddb5e2110092ce2db2026a55026bace01e6.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-e4203ddb5e2110092ce2db2026a55026bace01e6.zip |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] trust
-rw-r--r-- | 32/53ac7006bd26bc1d504d6617b8be3cd33cef75 | 181 |
1 files changed, 181 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/32/53ac7006bd26bc1d504d6617b8be3cd33cef75 b/32/53ac7006bd26bc1d504d6617b8be3cd33cef75 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3da00bbfe --- /dev/null +++ b/32/53ac7006bd26bc1d504d6617b8be3cd33cef75 @@ -0,0 +1,181 @@ +Return-Path: <s7r@sky-ip.org> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3168788B + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sat, 8 Aug 2015 11:08:38 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from outbound.mailhostbox.com (outbound.mailhostbox.com + [162.222.225.22]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5ABB132 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sat, 8 Aug 2015 11:08:29 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from [0.0.0.0] (herngaard.torservers.net [96.44.189.102]) + (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + (Authenticated sender: s7r@sky-ip.org) + by outbound.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CED71783F55; + Sat, 8 Aug 2015 11:08:22 +0000 (GMT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sky-ip.org; + s=20110108; t=1439032105; + bh=oUMpoY8cYFuKYLQb7GLT4gbYsq6lKgkkKbmZX5Ln314=; + h=Reply-To:Subject:References:To:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To; + b=AybogaYOjBQVXxygAobDA+kNh03oq5Ev1+/qFTtMj4EwOvG3rZaToGxy2mX+haMIq + dgp1h16H9JZewhmB/hQiMz4eW256Bi84Y3jMdhFlf6ZnI/zGIx9lqqIQZB/iWWthOA + sgQabT5vuEtIHsq/ixl/D1hjZG2URd9sA/H1X0Aw= +Reply-To: s7r@sky-ip.org +References: <8185694.hShCHQnpze@coldstorage> + <CALqxMTHpXymxg6ATcMM3gm73gww5tznzNsY5quNbRpzsnxS53g@mail.gmail.com> + <20150808085451.4689995.38052.4163@thomaszander.se> + <CAOoPuRYk_R+kyfyrROcL8y9Bdfq7ufsyXSH_Uva2GPGcK_jwkA@mail.gmail.com> +To: Benjamin <benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com>, + Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se> +From: s7r <s7r@sky-ip.org> +X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 +Message-ID: <55C5E31A.2090508@sky-ip.org> +Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 14:08:10 +0300 +User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 + Thunderbird/38.1.0 +MIME-Version: 1.0 +In-Reply-To: <CAOoPuRYk_R+kyfyrROcL8y9Bdfq7ufsyXSH_Uva2GPGcK_jwkA@mail.gmail.com> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit +X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020205.55C5E329.003B, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, + reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 +X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown +X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown +X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 +X-CTCH-Rules: +X-CTCH-Flags: 0 +X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 +X-CTCH-SenderID: s7r@sky-ip.org +X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1 +X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0 +X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0 +X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0 +X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0 +X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0 +X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0 +X-CTCH-SenderID-BlueWhiteFlag: 0 +X-CMAE-Score: 0 +X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=YL9iskyx c=1 sm=1 tr=0 + a=IN0GVkDZBMvuYpVMTZ7cxw==:117 a=IN0GVkDZBMvuYpVMTZ7cxw==:17 + a=ZDnEzkWgAAAA:8 a=-NIMs_s3AAAA:8 a=bvjBBkZ6AAAA:8 a=JAI3OqB5mnwA:10 + a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=ag1SF4gXAAAA:8 a=lp1u85yg6TwYw-ONSqYA:9 + a=LhxNC8mYXSY5lHdF:21 a=CAAzJie5eRfQ1b5z:21 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] trust +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 11:08:38 -0000 + +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- +Hash: SHA256 + +Interesting point of view Thomas! I agree that if we only think +towards one single direction (treat trust as a super bad thing) we +might miss some good features (or scalability levels) among the way. + +Benjamin: +> Lightning assumes explicit trust and ID - much like Ripple. That's +> not going to work, and I'm surprised that someone with basic +> knowledge of crypto doesn't see this problem. Having explicit +> counter-parties is something very different from Bitcoin where the +> entity doing transactions verification is unknowable and changes +> all the time. + +Can explain why exactly do you think this? What is the problem that +you see in lightning model exactly? I am not arguing, maybe you are +right and there is a part of the lightning network proposal which I +missed, so that is why I am asking for clarification here. + +Lightning doesn't require explicit trust, worst case scenario you can +end up with coins blocked until next in-chain broadcast. It depends on +each and very hub, obviously there will also be trusted, identified +public hubs but we can also have anonymous hubs. + +On 8/8/2015 12:24 PM, Benjamin via bitcoin-dev wrote: +>>> The point was NOT to trust no-one, the point was to trust +>>> everyone, but keep everyone honest by keeping the ledger open +>>> and publicly available. +> +> Trust takes many different forms and is not a binary function. You +> trust a surgeon to do an operation and a pilot to fly a jet, but +> not vice versa. To trust someone explicitly, you need to know who +> they are. Most social structures work without explicit identity and +> they still function quite well. For example companies are mostly +> anonymous to the consumer - if you buy something in a shop you +> trust a chain of people producing that good. A priori there is +> little reason to trust others, but rather that trust is already +> developed through social institutions. Money is one such +> institution with specific trust problems, and the history of money +> is indeed a very good way to study these problems. Unfortunately in +> Bitcoin development such insights are rare to find. +> +> Lightning assumes explicit trust and ID - much like Ripple. That's +> not going to work, and I'm surprised that someone with basic +> knowledge of crypto doesn't see this problem. Having explicit +> counter-parties is something very different from Bitcoin where the +> entity doing transactions verification is unknowable and changes +> all the time. Users of Bitcoin trust nodes doing the verification +> because they know it is in their best interest to be honest. +> Neither Sidechains nor LT have preserve that important property, +> and so IMO there are no good proposals to make Bitcoin scale (if +> that is possible at all). +> +> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev +> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: +> +> I didn't say off-chain, and gave an example of on-chain usecase +> with trusted middleman. +> +> So, no, that's not what I meant. +> +> Sent on the go, excuse the brevity. Original Message From: Adam +> Back Sent: Saturday, 8 August 2015 09:50 To: Thomas Zander Cc: +> Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] trust +> +> If you are saying that some people are happy trusting other +> people, and so would be perfectly fine with off-chain use of +> Bitcoin, then we agree and I already said that off-chain use case +> would be a constructive thing for someone to improve scale and +> interoperability of in the post you are replying to. However that +> use case is not a strong argument for weakening Bitcoin's security +> to get to more scale for that use case. +> +> In a world where we could have scale and decentralisation, then of +> course it would be nice to provide people with that outlook more +> security than they seem to want. And sometimes people dont +> understand why security is useful until it goes wrong, so it would +> be a useful thing to do. (Like insurance, your money being seized +> by paypal out of the blue etc). And indeed providing security at +> scale maybe possible with lightning like protocols that people are +> working on. +> +> Adam +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- +Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) + +iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVxeMaAAoJEIN/pSyBJlsRJFoH/RbgArUMJStQwF92XZk99dUd +0xI/VU1goFLDFiFVkrea7uNWUrWw0GM9nDq0kTIV+mTi9rTYgWKlgA1XZnPusr35 +GpDhXxoG3mJmay9AX1fezrZjGmCZPCjSnPWa+BeQCSMXnVchZX0U4XZSwgD7qTIU +7o4r5JIDuGxXyPcwECnB7ePmZ8xA2QGQaMW6nnMhlA4KCanSd5/78kcpUp/kGAJ1 +chjhV2g7tAeq3NMs2IXeIMiEAqji0B7RRAejviBg9CAwbpo4dP3dRz8hv/qPx6K0 +Mu6jHczCQOUyAHagwG8q4+laMbkskVETw18NwluspOZi3inxvVpOD60CDqSZPS4= +=ogMZ +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- + |