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
|
Return-Path: <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F017AE7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 21:05:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com (mail-la0-f53.google.com
[209.85.215.53])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 490541F2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 21:05:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lacny3 with SMTP id ny3so104468180lac.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=mso+cRnLdpyhM06Qle4QGjdHrmSaO6CiHXlz2OtzIZA=;
b=AfZpwkE5eGH/fEOp+lIYH8LAfx2kZJajckxoqrYR7Tq5CIuFioBg2VpuMNKZQYQheC
N7ze/u7+QgjpFxIeG8pr+cbqUauQpRVituWyz4vidM2qWVR1/5lUdoUgUZ0IMOsNSZ4+
d0XYOciPiuZTtPUUucPEJFLoa2ZYN0/u+wFNulan+YlV42XZbLXYSxgVGYaLHDDS/1CG
VYeiyb6JYOjqIdFvVwwNtGAqrWPvptepw9Gx1GNZTAyRZfOTlwKdr7uf6Ntn+/kxVWmn
I2D1qy3oshBW8ayq9CUWN2RGd7naZ+qXir9R0Drb17wVpYxY9AiErumeoZt3LYOJRbhm
iH0A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.147.201 with SMTP id tm9mr11165652lbb.40.1435525510309;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTG7+MMN50VH9-Y++B1_DeBXTBKpkeA5dYT1EbVGZ1aYag@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>
<CALqxMTFv+nLo3phA2HS26F=r5+yGCOh=z8+Kub7GuC_bGVOfXg@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTG7+MMN50VH9-Y++B1_DeBXTBKpkeA5dYT1EbVGZ1aYag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 17:05:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T3Xhu4n3LzjEjanbAnUr5UeG0DzY7HXchfOvEa+BNqakw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b34391a1bae5105199a54b0
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
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 21:05:13 -0000
--047d7b34391a1bae5105199a54b0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
> This is probably going to sound impolite, but I think it's pertinent.
>
> 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
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),
then I doubt other people do, either. You need to do a better job of
explaining it.
But even if you could convince me that it WAS better from a
security/decentralization point of view:
a) Lightning Network is nothing but a whitepaper right now. We are a long
way from a practical implementation supported by even one wallet.
b) The Lightning Network paper itself says bigger blocks will be needed
even if (especially if!) Lightning is wildly successful.
--047d7b34391a1bae5105199a54b0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On S=
un, Jun 28, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Adam Back <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mai=
lto:adam@cypherspace.org" target=3D"_blank">adam@cypherspace.org</a>></s=
pan> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">This is probably going to sou=
nd impolite, but I think it's pertinent.<br>
<br>
Gavin, on dwelling on the the fact that you appear to not understand<br>
the basics of the lightning network, I am a little alarmed about this</bloc=
kquote><div><br></div><div>If I don't see how switching from using the =
thousands of fully-validating bitcoin nodes with (tens? hundreds?) of Light=
ning Network hubs is better in terms of decentralization (or security, in t=
erms of Sybil/DoS attacks), then I doubt other people do, either. You need =
to do a better job of explaining it.</div><div><br></div><div>But even if y=
ou could convince me that it WAS better from a security/decentralization po=
int of view:</div><div><br></div><div>a) Lightning Network is nothing but a=
whitepaper right now. We are a long way from a practical implementation su=
pported by even one wallet.</div><div><br></div><div>b) The Lightning Netwo=
rk paper itself says bigger blocks will be needed even if (especially if!) =
Lightning is wildly successful.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>
</div></div>
--047d7b34391a1bae5105199a54b0--
|
