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
|
Return-Path: <adam@cypherspace.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E56EB305
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 12:37:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84654E7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 12:37:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-qg0-f42.google.com ([209.85.192.42]) by mrelay.perfora.net
(mreueus001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LykDJ-1Z2e2r28zX-0168n2 for
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:37:58 +0200
Received: by qget71 with SMTP id t71so4213993qge.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 05:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.22.5 with SMTP id g5mr22266272qkh.45.1435495077732; Sun,
28 Jun 2015 05:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.28.39 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 05:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOoPuRarNoPwLxVqjJ_g4b6HsWJecB-oCdfEjaknKbUnKdnmEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <COL402-EAS1148599DFFBB257C33F293ACDAB0@phx.gbl>
<CALqxMTHbeyyVAO9qXO4wrQo3sCh89gwMRS9BjiN+4iMs-bt5ow@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOoPuRarNoPwLxVqjJ_g4b6HsWJecB-oCdfEjaknKbUnKdnmEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:37:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CALqxMTGXcbES5Pwz3cWO+PQK5kmf3rZ_i00=b=PBnO678XuF0A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Benjamin <benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:aHeShs1/XX55QZkkqYMm47U5CplMPkubp2ECVGlGdwYPtUMdOyI
E9bxAnT9oC51bAA/Kz9ciTEtcMjkzZCjxvLYNneyF2aG7et5hNRN9JerAy0v5QiWp10MjQ0
eRR+WM7zs7Ft7rbmqidiyluo07HQsrlVv7ShrD1rW8AkWWK+w+uC53ps61MoWNhl0ADnrmS
5z/HudpDkm9mA+phqfcoQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:lZgBeoJMqsI=:AmWvOMazMxEL8uIT9sfUKB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X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
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 12:38:00 -0000
On 28 June 2015 at 12:29, Benjamin <benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that naive scaling will likely lead to bad outcomes. They might have
> the advantage though, as this would mean not changing Bitcoin.
Sure we can work incrementally and carefully, and this is exactly what
Bitcoin has been doing, and *must* do for safety and security for the
last 5 years!
That doesnt mean that useful serious improvements have not been made.
> Level2 and Lightning is not well defined. If you move money to a third
> party, even if it is within the constrained of a locked contract, then I
> don't think that will solve the issues.
I think you misunderstand how lightning works. Every lightning
transaction *is* a valid bitcoin transaction that could be posted to
the Bitcoin network to reclaim funds if a hub went permanently
offline. It is just that while the hubs involved remain in service,
there is no need to do so. This is why it has been described as a
(write coalescing) write cache layer for Bitcoin.>
I believe people expect lightning to be peer 2 peer like bitcoin.
Adam
|
