diff options
| author | Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> | 2015-06-28 17:05:10 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-06-28 21:05:13 +0000 |
| commit | f23ea7949b7597ae5a40d1e5248e0b6f64611549 (patch) | |
| tree | 1f9309e4aecf771783fa47fda5ababe6fb786c28 | |
| parent | d87c15d74c214cd6e6f4794d3e2b78440d2882ef (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-f23ea7949b7597ae5a40d1e5248e0b6f64611549.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-f23ea7949b7597ae5a40d1e5248e0b6f64611549.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit
| -rw-r--r-- | 9d/a5834e66612c9407898157d256094f8273ae6e | 118 |
1 files changed, 118 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/9d/a5834e66612c9407898157d256094f8273ae6e b/9d/a5834e66612c9407898157d256094f8273ae6e new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0fc482f63 --- /dev/null +++ b/9d/a5834e66612c9407898157d256094f8273ae6e @@ -0,0 +1,118 @@ +Return-Path: <gavinandresen@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F017AE7 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 28 Jun 2015 21:05:13 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com (mail-la0-f53.google.com + [209.85.215.53]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 490541F2 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 28 Jun 2015 21:05:12 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by lacny3 with SMTP id ny3so104468180lac.3 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:05:10 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; + h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to + :cc:content-type; + bh=mso+cRnLdpyhM06Qle4QGjdHrmSaO6CiHXlz2OtzIZA=; + b=AfZpwkE5eGH/fEOp+lIYH8LAfx2kZJajckxoqrYR7Tq5CIuFioBg2VpuMNKZQYQheC + N7ze/u7+QgjpFxIeG8pr+cbqUauQpRVituWyz4vidM2qWVR1/5lUdoUgUZ0IMOsNSZ4+ + d0XYOciPiuZTtPUUucPEJFLoa2ZYN0/u+wFNulan+YlV42XZbLXYSxgVGYaLHDDS/1CG + VYeiyb6JYOjqIdFvVwwNtGAqrWPvptepw9Gx1GNZTAyRZfOTlwKdr7uf6Ntn+/kxVWmn + I2D1qy3oshBW8ayq9CUWN2RGd7naZ+qXir9R0Drb17wVpYxY9AiErumeoZt3LYOJRbhm + iH0A== +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.112.147.201 with SMTP id tm9mr11165652lbb.40.1435525510309; + Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:05:10 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:05:10 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTG7+MMN50VH9-Y++B1_DeBXTBKpkeA5dYT1EbVGZ1aYag@mail.gmail.com> +References: <COL402-EAS1148599DFFBB257C33F293ACDAB0@phx.gbl> + <CALqxMTHbeyyVAO9qXO4wrQo3sCh89gwMRS9BjiN+4iMs-bt5ow@mail.gmail.com> + <CAOoPuRarNoPwLxVqjJ_g4b6HsWJecB-oCdfEjaknKbUnKdnmEg@mail.gmail.com> + <CALqxMTGXcbES5Pwz3cWO+PQK5kmf3rZ_i00=b=PBnO678XuF0A@mail.gmail.com> + <COL131-DS8E3DCDBD1A0F359206781CDAB0@phx.gbl> + <CAOG=w-swydsyzHx7kWKCCWnrDT0kG=c+FTDmwFD3sjbA0i4TpA@mail.gmail.com> + <CABsx9T3PaBcYkXWyn=TmCROn61CGkEYD9qxob6hKGdD3sy-SyQ@mail.gmail.com> + <CALqxMTFv+nLo3phA2HS26F=r5+yGCOh=z8+Kub7GuC_bGVOfXg@mail.gmail.com> + <CALqxMTG7+MMN50VH9-Y++B1_DeBXTBKpkeA5dYT1EbVGZ1aYag@mail.gmail.com> +Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 17:05:10 -0400 +Message-ID: <CABsx9T3Xhu4n3LzjEjanbAnUr5UeG0DzY7HXchfOvEa+BNqakw@mail.gmail.com> +From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> +To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b34391a1bae5105199a54b0 +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW + autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit +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: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 21:05:13 -0000 + +--047d7b34391a1bae5105199a54b0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote: + +> This is probably going to sound impolite, but I think it's pertinent. +> +> Gavin, on dwelling on the the fact that you appear to not understand +> the basics of the lightning network, I am a little alarmed about this + + +If I don't see how switching from using the thousands of fully-validating +bitcoin nodes with (tens? hundreds?) of Lightning Network hubs is better in +terms of decentralization (or security, in terms of Sybil/DoS attacks), +then I doubt other people do, either. You need to do a better job of +explaining it. + +But even if you could convince me that it WAS better from a +security/decentralization point of view: + +a) Lightning Network is nothing but a whitepaper right now. We are a long +way from a practical implementation supported by even one wallet. + +b) The Lightning Network paper itself says bigger blocks will be needed +even if (especially if!) Lightning is wildly successful. + +--047d7b34391a1bae5105199a54b0 +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On S= +un, Jun 28, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Adam Back <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mai= +lto:adam@cypherspace.org" target=3D"_blank">adam@cypherspace.org</a>></s= +pan> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex= +;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">This is probably going to sou= +nd impolite, but I think it's pertinent.<br> +<br> +Gavin, on dwelling on the the fact that you appear to not understand<br> +the basics of the lightning network, I am a little alarmed about this</bloc= +kquote><div><br></div><div>If I don't see how switching from using the = +thousands of fully-validating bitcoin nodes with (tens? hundreds?) of Light= +ning Network hubs is better in terms of decentralization (or security, in t= +erms of Sybil/DoS attacks), then I doubt other people do, either. You need = +to do a better job of explaining it.</div><div><br></div><div>But even if y= +ou could convince me that it WAS better from a security/decentralization po= +int of view:</div><div><br></div><div>a) Lightning Network is nothing but a= + whitepaper right now. We are a long way from a practical implementation su= +pported by even one wallet.</div><div><br></div><div>b) The Lightning Netwo= +rk paper itself says bigger blocks will be needed even if (especially if!) = +Lightning is wildly successful.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div> +</div></div> + +--047d7b34391a1bae5105199a54b0-- + |