Message-ID: <5590A325.800@AndySchroder.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 21:45:09 -0400
From: Andy Schroder <info@AndySchroder.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
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>	<CABsx9T3Xhu4n3LzjEjanbAnUr5UeG0DzY7HXchfOvEa+BNqakw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALqxMTGd1mB4Sra=ORV=d0y1v8KzUQnK8=MX2_MFP1NuMnPm+Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTGd1mB4Sra=ORV=d0y1v8KzUQnK8=MX2_MFP1NuMnPm+Q@mail.gmail.com>
OpenPGP: id=2D44186B;
	url=http://andyschroder.com/static/AndySchroder.asc
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="ktQPoa9UtTlDvSJCsOfXsn0TuIP5tjq4R"
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--ktQPoa9UtTlDvSJCsOfXsn0TuIP5tjq4R
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Regarding privacy and the lightening network. Has this been well=20
addressed? I haven't seen much that leads me to believe there is. Only=20
options I see are to have many open payment channels, but that is still=20
limiting and inefficient, or require an extensive number of hops in your =

payment route, but this is also limiting.


Andy Schroder

On 06/28/2015 06:07 PM, Adam Back wrote:
> On 28 June 2015 at 23:05, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrot=
e:
>>> 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-validat=
ing
>> bitcoin nodes with (tens? hundreds?) of Lightning Network hubs is bett=
er in
>> terms of decentralization (or security, in terms of Sybil/DoS attacks)=
,
> Its a source routed network, not a broadcast network.  Fees are
> charged on channels so
> DoS is just a way to pay people a multiple of bandwidth cost.
>
> in terms of trustlessness Andrew Lapp explained it pretty well:
>> I don't mind a set of central authorities being part of an option IF t=
he central authority
>> doesn't need to be trusted. On the blockchain, the larger miner is, th=
e more you have
>> to trust them to not collude with anyone to reverse your payments or d=
estroy the trust
>> in the system in some attack. On the Lightning network, a large hub ca=
n't steal my
>> money.
>>
>> I think most people share the sentiment that trustlessness is what mat=
ters and
>> decentralization is just a synonym for trustlessness when talking abou=
t the blockchain
>> and mining, however decentralization isn't necessarily synonymous with=
 trustlessness
>> nor is centralization synonymous with trust-requiring when you're talk=
ing about
>> something else.
> Gavin wrote:
>> then I doubt other people do, either. You need to do a better job of e=
xplaining it.
> I gave it a go a couple of posts up.  I didnt realise people here
> proposing mega-blocks were not paying attention to the whole lightning
> concept and detail.
>
> People said lots of things about how it's better to work on lightning,
> to scale algorithmically, rather than increasing block-size to
> dangerously centralising proportions.
> Did you think we were Gish Galloping you?  We were completely serious.
>
> The paper is on http://lightning.network
>
> though it is not so clearly explained there, however Joseph is working
> on improving the paper as I understand it.
>
> Rusty wrote a high-level blog explainer: http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=3D4=
50
>
> though I don't recall that he got into recirculation, negative fees
> etc.  A good question
> for the lightning-dev mailing list maybe.
>
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/
>
> There are a couple of recorded presentation videos / podcasts from Jose=
ph Poon.
>
> sf bitcoin dev presentation:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D2QH5EV_Io0E
>
> epicenter bitcoin:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DfBS_ieDwQ9k
>
> There's a related paper from Christian Decker "Duplex Micropayment Chan=
nels"
>
> http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/716b955c130e6c703fac336ea17b1670/duplex-=
micropayment-channels.pdf
>
>> But even if you could convince me that it WAS better from a
>> security/decentralization point of view:
> We don't need to convince people, we just have to code it and
> demonstrate it, which people are working on.
>
> But Lightning does need a decentralised and secure Bitcoin network for
> anchor and reclaim transactions, so take it easy with the mega-blocks
> in the mean-time.
>
>> a) Lightning Network is nothing but a whitepaper right now. We are a l=
ong
>> way from a practical implementation supported by even one wallet.
> maybe you want to check in on
>
> https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning
>
> and help code it.
>
> I expect we can get something running inside a year.  Which kind of
> obviates the burning "need" for a schedule into the far future rising
> to 8GB with unrealistic bandwidth growth assumptions that will surely
> cause centralisation problems.
>
> For block-size I think it would be better to have a 2-4 year or one
> off size bump with policy limits and then re-evaluate after we've seen
> what lightning can do.
>
> I have been saying the same thing ad-nauseam for weeks.
>
>> b) The Lightning Network paper itself says bigger blocks will be neede=
d even
>> if (especially if!) Lightning is wildly successful.
> Not nearly as big as if you tried to put the transactions it would
> enable on the chain, that's for sure!  We dont know what that limit is
> but people have been imagining 1,000 or 10,000 transactions per anchor
> transaction.  If micro-payments get popular many more.
>
> Basically users would park Bitcoins a on a hub channel instead of the
> blockchain.  The channel can stay up indefinitely, and the user has
> assurances analogous to greenaddress time-lock mechanism
>
> Flexcap maybe a better solution because that allows bursting
> block-size when economically rational.
>
> Note that the time-locks with lightning are assumed to be relative
> CTLV eg using the mechanism as Mark Friedenbach described in a post
> here, and as implemented in the elements sidechain, so there is not a
> huge rush to reclaim funds.  They can be spread out in time.
>
> If you want to scale Bitcoin - like really scale it - work on
> lightning.  Lightning + a decentralised and secure Bitcoin, scales
> further and is more trustless than Bitcoin forced into centralisation
> via premature mega-blocks.
>
> To my mind a shorter, more conservative block-size increase to give a
> few years room is enough for now.  We'll be in a better position to
> know what the right next step is after lightning is running.
>
> Something to mention is you can elide transactions before reclaiming.
> So long as the balancing transaction is correct, someone online can
> swap it for you with an equal balance one with less hops of
> intermediate payment flows.
>
>
> It's pretty interesting what you can do already.  I'm fairly confident
> we're not finished algorithmically optimising it either.  It's
> surprising how much new territory there is just sitting there
> unexplored.
>
> Adam
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>


--ktQPoa9UtTlDvSJCsOfXsn0TuIP5tjq4R
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVkKMlAAoJEDT679stRBhrmjIH/1QcjP+0HAK48wxS8zaQugCM
Sd3NmeCUIFfJJFbyauKkOc2DlR2ROyEd0brSc/8u0Zxw7GWM2GyS17a4AAo5Upuc
C8AEq4BkTvn143qzobpTnojSKHQqBBPUgyDvd71f4zu7M4qG89izW2vP3MtigFpX
PVOr5/c/sJXY5sRZVoJJIWzX+oYLuq7AAXvadrF3PqWOVe55l4uaQ7YjcYwnTjDd
qQclLG37uldhCeuqcGz/3aP9jmL5cJ8JHsk4eg+elfsY3L8Yja5BqZ2Vdr6iVenJ
4BpmDveJmcOv+fBLRwy6B4EDZg70zC1pGEeI1KSh3lc6yeAB/2wecHv0FrwJNQU=
=CDKr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ktQPoa9UtTlDvSJCsOfXsn0TuIP5tjq4R--