Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5kdC-0001kz-KD for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 00:58:06 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.174; envelope-from=ctpacia@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk0-f174.google.com; Received: from mail-qk0-f174.google.com ([209.85.220.174]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z5kdB-00061C-Nt for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 00:58:06 +0000 Received: by qkfe185 with SMTP id e185so53323040qkf.3 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:58:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.55.42.89 with SMTP id q86mr20203674qkh.74.1434675480330; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18d:8301:36e:75f8:f367:7d33:df4e? ([2601:18d:8301:36e:75f8:f367:7d33:df4e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p202sm4795591qha.20.2015.06.18.17.57.59 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55836916.6040002@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:57:58 -0400 From: Chris Pacia User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net> <55831CAB.2080303@jrn.me.uk> <1867667.WXWC1C9quc@crushinator> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080005050102040202090608" X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (ctpacia[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Z5kdB-00061C-Nt Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 00:58:06 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080005050102040202090608 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 06/18/2015 06:33 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > > * Get safe forms of replace-by-fee and child-pays-for-parent > finished and in 0.12. > * Develop cross-platform libraries for managing micropayment > channels, and get wallet authors to adopt > * Use fidelity bonds, solvency proofs, and other tricks to minimize > the risk of already deployed off-chain solutions as an interim measure > until: > * Deploy soft-fork changes for truly scalable solutions like > Lightning Network. One of my biggest concerns is that these solutions (lightning network in particular) could end up being worse, in terms of decentralization, than would be a bitcoin network using larger blocks. We don't exactly know what the economies of scale are for pay hubs and could very well end up with far fewer hubs than nodes at any conceivable block size. Of course, it could also turn out to be fantastic, but it seems like an enormous gamble to basically force everyone in the ecosystem to collectively spend millions of dollars upgrading to Lightning /and then/ see whether it's actually an improvement in terms of decentralization. To me, a much more sane approach would be to allow people to voluntarily opt in to those other solutions after we've had an opportunity to experiment with them and see how they actually function in practice, but that can't happen if the network runs out of capacity first. --------------080005050102040202090608 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 06/18/2015 06:33 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:

  * Get safe forms of replace-by-fee and child-pays-for-parent finished and in 0.12.
  * Develop cross-platform libraries for managing micropayment channels, and get wallet authors to adopt
  * Use fidelity bonds, solvency proofs, and other tricks to minimize the risk of already deployed off-chain solutions as an interim measure until:
  * Deploy soft-fork changes for truly scalable solutions like Lightning Network.

One of my biggest concerns is that these solutions (lightning network in particular) could end up being worse, in terms of decentralization, than would be a bitcoin network using larger blocks. We don't exactly know what the economies of scale are for pay hubs and could very well end up with far fewer hubs than nodes at any conceivable block size.

Of course, it could also turn out to be fantastic, but it seems like an enormous gamble to basically force everyone in the ecosystem to collectively spend millions of dollars upgrading to Lightning and then see whether it's actually an improvement in terms of decentralization.

To me, a much more sane approach would be to allow people to voluntarily opt in to those other solutions after we've had an opportunity to experiment with them and see how they actually function in practice, but that can't happen if the network runs out of capacity first.

--------------080005050102040202090608--