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
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
|
Return-Path: <truthcoin@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 738D8826
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:19:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qg0-f52.google.com (mail-qg0-f52.google.com
[209.85.192.52])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEF4E21C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:19:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qgeo38 with SMTP id o38so1401084qge.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:in-reply-to:content-type;
bh=5TYMG1cZqQbUTmpocM950h2PHtCzElIOLfVYH+mSxj8=;
b=K3VAX1LK2UFhCp4e98zl4ngn4DoGcI0yQSa9YZmN89y+CsAiwgpIbv2N6IBI8k1NUq
u155Z2Jh8/tFkR4crxLRfKNUY10D536kJL0EwDVNlksgsR9Ddc2cnrq6mLXZP6YOGji5
xqVNBDeYKIEbR+n4yqbX7l8f/zCwpMb0sXv89G5LyEPmJQaGQUlaTzM+/tDyg3KUajQ4
rjLjt85SFOaQFt+dOgjw7nqPl0yeGnFVAxrO8D857jp4EuzxypWUT14ecreflCXoHlpf
g88DtiXma1Ta/ZsLi1+ku0S+LuN0odCjAn22xEjud7hlfFOHZND5vnYXf+wUWvcHRJ3r
gpqA==
X-Received: by 10.140.237.215 with SMTP id i206mr5148076qhc.9.1444835987909;
Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (ool-4575fa8d.dyn.optonline.net.
[69.117.250.141]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
f189sm3522812qhe.1.2015.10.14.08.19.46
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: s7r@sky-ip.org, bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <561E2B09.3090509@sky-ip.org>
From: Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <561E7283.2080507@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:19:31 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <561E2B09.3090509@sky-ip.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------040003090708040406040600"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Lightning Network's effect on miner fees
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: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:19:49 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040003090708040406040600
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
LN transactions are a substitute good for on-chain transactions.
Therefore, demand for on-chain transactions will decrease as a result of
LN, meaning that fees will be lower than they would otherwise be.
However, the two are also perfect compliments, as LN transactions cannot
take place at all without periodic on-chain transactions.
The demand for *all* Bitcoin transactions (LN and otherwise) is itself a
function of innumerable factors, one of which is the question "Which
form of money [Bitcoin or not-Bitcoin] do I think my trading partners
will be using?". By supporting a higher rate of (higher-quality) Bitcoin
transactions, the net result is highly uncertain, but will probably be
that LN actually increases trading fees.
On 10/14/2015 6:14 AM, s7r via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am reading about the Lightning Network and the BIPs which need to be
> deployed until it can be fully functional. I have to say it's a neat
> solution to scale and have almost instant transactions in a peer 2
> peer, distributed and trustless way. I already knows what the needed
> BIPs are and what each one does, I am curios about the impact this
> will have on miner fees.
>
> If transactions happen in a big percent offchain, and they are only
> broadcasted on the mainchain where funds are moved in or out of the
> lightning network, this means there will be less transactions on the
> mainchain -> less fees collected by the miners. What will happen when
> the block reward will go away? Either the fees for the little amount
> of onchain transactions will increase to unpractical levels, either
> the miners will find it not profitable to keep their hardware plugged
> in to mine, so will leave and the effect will be that the hashing
> power of the network will decrease. Since the network's hashing power
> is a security feature (it makes some attacks impossible or insanely
> expensive) I think it's important to anticipate what will happen in
> this scenario.
> _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--------------040003090708040406040600
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
LN transactions are a substitute good for on-chain transactions.<br>
<br>
Therefore, demand for on-chain transactions will decrease as a
result of LN, meaning that fees will be lower than they would
otherwise be.<br>
<br>
However, the two are also perfect compliments, as LN transactions
cannot take place at all without periodic on-chain transactions.<br>
<br>
The demand for *all* Bitcoin transactions (LN and otherwise) is
itself a function of innumerable factors, one of which is the
question "Which form of money [Bitcoin or not-Bitcoin] do I think my
trading partners will be using?". By supporting a higher rate of
(higher-quality) Bitcoin transactions, the net result is highly
uncertain, but will probably be that LN actually increases trading
fees.<br>
<br>
On 10/14/2015 6:14 AM, s7r via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hello,<br>
<br>
I am reading about the Lightning Network and the BIPs which need
to be<br>
deployed until it can be fully functional. I have to say it's a
neat<br>
solution to scale and have almost instant transactions in a peer 2<br>
peer, distributed and trustless way. I already knows what the
needed<br>
BIPs are and what each one does, I am curios about the impact this<br>
will have on miner fees.<br>
<br>
If transactions happen in a big percent offchain, and they are
only<br>
broadcasted on the mainchain where funds are moved in or out of
the<br>
lightning network, this means there will be less transactions on
the<br>
mainchain -> less fees collected by the miners. What will
happen when<br>
the block reward will go away? Either the fees for the little
amount<br>
of onchain transactions will increase to unpractical levels,
either<br>
the miners will find it not profitable to keep their hardware
plugged<br>
in to mine, so will leave and the effect will be that the hashing<br>
power of the network will decrease. Since the network's hashing
power<br>
is a security feature (it makes some attacks impossible or
insanely<br>
expensive) I think it's important to anticipate what will happen
in<br>
this scenario.<br>
</blockquote>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a></span><br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------040003090708040406040600--
|
