MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T3PaBcYkXWyn=TmCROn61CGkEYD9qxob6hKGdD3sy-SyQ@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>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 19:53:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDr2iftG2D+EF3dCx4Vf0M_J0cVzANRnLuhC1hSp_h8=Yg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit
Precedence: list

On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> But ultimately, lightning usefully solves a problem where participants
>> have semi-long lived payment endpoints.
>
>
> Very few of my own personal Bitcoin transactions fit that use-case.
>
> In fact, very few of my own personal dollar transactions fit that use-case
> (I suppose if I was addicted to Starbucks I'd have one of their payment
> cards that I topped up every once in a while, which would map nicely onto a
> payment channel). I suppose I could setup a payment channel with the grocery
> store I shop at once a week, but that would be inconvenient (I'd have to
> pre-fund it) and bad for my privacy.

Unlike other payment channels designs, the lightning payment channel
network allows you to pay to people that you haven't sent a pre-fund
to.
There's must be a path in the network from you to the payee.
That's simpler with only a few hubs although too few hubs is bad for privacy.

> I can see how payment channels would work between big financial institutions
> as a settlement layer, but isn't that exactly the centralization concern
> that is making a lot of people worried about increasing the max block size?

Worried about financial institutions using Bitcoin? No. Who said that?

> And if there are only a dozen or two popular hubs, that's much worse
> centralization-wise compared to a few thousand fully-validating Bitcoin
> nodes.

Remember the hubs cannot steal any coins.

> Don't get me wrong, I think the Lightning Network is a fantastic idea and a
> great experiment and will likely be used for all sorts of great payment
> innovations (micropayments for bandwidth maybe, or maybe paying workers by
> the hour instead of at the end of the month). But I don't think it is a
> scaling solution for the types of payments the Bitcoin network is handling
> today.

I don't see how people could pay coffees with bitcoin in the long term
otherwise.
Bitcoin IOUs from a third party (or federation) maybe, but not with
real p2p btc.