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
|
Return-Path: <s7r@sky-ip.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63621273
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 14 Oct 2015 10:14:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outbound.mailhostbox.com (outbound.mailhostbox.com
[162.222.225.11])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B42E1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 14 Oct 2015 10:14:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [0.0.0.0] (1.tor.exit.babylon.network [149.202.98.160])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: s7r@sky-ip.org)
by outbound.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 373CD1A188D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 14 Oct 2015 10:14:38 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sky-ip.org;
s=20110108; t=1444817680;
bh=6yR+nr8HoYtWF/RUGPqeu2A0HcAJFwYBuLEU9Yj/MTA=;
h=Reply-To:To:From:Subject:Date;
b=WeuvJL4F+8D+SYbqRsJR6MnaHfdPQ5l5M+A3EDK6A1HOkJpw1VbngYwWZUiQlaLk+
DVqGPZLTA+NOsjSXkJ7XHfl78p9lUdqHnO8eb0/IpYADXSQNOBLihCppWRVkFcZ4ac
N1maEi7HXZYTSFsTucnqZKkyaPfvYKp+8mfb3Lls=
Reply-To: s7r@sky-ip.org
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
From: s7r <s7r@sky-ip.org>
Message-ID: <561E2B09.3090509@sky-ip.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:14:33 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CMAE-Score: 0
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=IPz/cVbG c=1 sm=1 tr=0
a=LriYrpPHjiOxvXxWwTSOJg==:117 a=LriYrpPHjiOxvXxWwTSOJg==:17
a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=K_KwrihZpuZ5xc2wKwsA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 172.18.214.92
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: [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 10:14:45 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWHisJAAoJEIN/pSyBJlsRQfgH/05DTVd+oUNeBt6LzitY/b2a
b4Ubky0vWE5fa7sHxcfMQz4g4dPVKrDrMrpJsx2aY6D8a14tXzHsgyyRqJSZlHZh
CUYvuy+HVje5wSwYRRIFEI+yyJLRrxJYLQuTqd9u/5kpL91Qq1cgzGr9BQgz20vb
tDEP3Z0/08XeUPFA8ZxwjUptfzypVl0euIjsa2bFNFAWN9UYcDqKc0MnqgCYRTx3
F/cm1NVmtFdpE2srTXVOqC0nTdfhHjnd1zmfRpPq0ZZoG43U81PbzC0kZmdz6rkt
kUrtzKEDRLs12FNPVMrNnsHvRpScqoxIelubSvR8U3xrtIHkG9bpYO9EMqX6O4I=
=+sdq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
