Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_468278D3-B8A8-4A41-B686-C1CCE106F262";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTGd1mB4Sra=ORV=d0y1v8KzUQnK8=MX2_MFP1NuMnPm+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 17:59:40 -0700
Message-Id: <2FEA7608-27D6-44C4-B521-091C061D5498@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>
	<CABsx9T3Xhu4n3LzjEjanbAnUr5UeG0DzY7HXchfOvEa+BNqakw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALqxMTGd1mB4Sra=ORV=d0y1v8KzUQnK8=MX2_MFP1NuMnPm+Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit
Precedence: list


--Apple-Mail=_468278D3-B8A8-4A41-B686-C1CCE106F262
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

There=E2=80=99s no question that a flooding mesh network requiring =
global consensus for every transactions is not the way. It=E2=80=99s =
also clear that a routable protocol capable of compensating hubs is =
basically the holy grail.

So what=E2=80=99s there to discuss?

- Eric

> On Jun 28, 2015, at 3:07 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
>=20
> On 28 June 2015 at 23:05, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> =
wrote:
>>>=20
>>> This is probably going to sound impolite, but I think it's =
pertinent.
>>>=20
>>> 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
>>=20
>> 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),
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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 =
the central authority
>> doesn't need to be trusted. On the blockchain, the larger miner is, =
the more you have
>> to trust them to not collude with anyone to reverse your payments or =
destroy the trust
>> in the system in some attack. On the Lightning network, a large hub =
can't steal my
>> money.
>>=20
>> I think most people share the sentiment that trustlessness is what =
matters and
>> decentralization is just a synonym for trustlessness when talking =
about the blockchain
>> and mining, however decentralization isn't necessarily synonymous =
with trustlessness
>> nor is centralization synonymous with trust-requiring when you're =
talking about
>> something else.
>=20
> Gavin wrote:
>> then I doubt other people do, either. You need to do a better job of =
explaining it.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> The paper is on http://lightning.network
>=20
> though it is not so clearly explained there, however Joseph is working
> on improving the paper as I understand it.
>=20
> Rusty wrote a high-level blog explainer: =
http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=3D450
>=20
> though I don't recall that he got into recirculation, negative fees
> etc.  A good question
> for the lightning-dev mailing list maybe.
>=20
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/
>=20
> There are a couple of recorded presentation videos / podcasts from =
Joseph Poon.
>=20
> sf bitcoin dev presentation:
>=20
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D2QH5EV_Io0E
>=20
> epicenter bitcoin:
>=20
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DfBS_ieDwQ9k
>=20
> There's a related paper from Christian Decker "Duplex Micropayment =
Channels"
>=20
> =
http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/716b955c130e6c703fac336ea17b1670/duplex-mic=
ropayment-channels.pdf
>=20
>> But even if you could convince me that it WAS better from a
>> security/decentralization point of view:
>=20
> We don't need to convince people, we just have to code it and
> demonstrate it, which people are working on.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>> a) Lightning Network is nothing but a whitepaper right now. We are a =
long
>> way from a practical implementation supported by even one wallet.
>=20
> maybe you want to check in on
>=20
> https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning
>=20
> and help code it.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> I have been saying the same thing ad-nauseam for weeks.
>=20
>> b) The Lightning Network paper itself says bigger blocks will be =
needed even
>> if (especially if!) Lightning is wildly successful.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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
>=20
> Flexcap maybe a better solution because that allows bursting
> block-size when economically rational.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Adam
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--Apple-Mail=_468278D3-B8A8-4A41-B686-C1CCE106F262
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=XUV5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_468278D3-B8A8-4A41-B686-C1CCE106F262--