1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 104E2323
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 17:53:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com (mail-wg0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 559C5D5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 17:53:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wgjx7 with SMTP id x7so50800562wgj.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 10:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=Ig4gUPggsTiPXiIWMEytitjkmgi43OVUqwTAJDbUDuo=;
b=kbIcCE5xBw+BRe1FbgcSs0eVWVOnLvMHCB/cF4/mhuyzF4QA+XuyQb2ohsRxMMSBiY
8fjvZ6ZFiq3eOaaHBBZ1GPoP4ODX/VG/oy4twa3vtTNlacz8dIzihHtLaIUvp1/aJi0M
pvK3alQrNIBMI2eQjUk6BXcID4UhyGlwOy1ouND4MNE6nOFoce7pwsOOP7EKydfRyd3N
aw528tmC4ESOF78hnWLg/PA/pyYCwcHgzADrxWbu+wFn2LClpc62RxorkV64olqkhWsa
dOwP9A53zxd1Oa3PVctS9LgZcuYX4aXEgObO3uwylKFjAoNHc0ZxVBeYSsco6rFaMnCh
Rb+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmSh2cV355hDbNEV4Pa5VTDeePmyjOOf5B8Br4UNZljoUAwvtB89PKrgBZtvY3aRSEgz3/l
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.58.7 with SMTP id m7mr21052111wjq.109.1435514020934;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 10:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 10:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
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
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 17:53:43 -0000
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.
|
