Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 683E88E4 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 22:30:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:09:55 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from dd32718.kasserver.com (dd32718.kasserver.com [85.13.150.64]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E794318F for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 22:30:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.100] (ip-176-199-142-230.hsi06.unitymediagroup.de [176.199.142.230]) by dd32718.kasserver.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 13AD349002BC for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 00:20:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <55C7D234.1040306@bitmarkets.net> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 00:20:36 +0200 From: "info@bitmarkets.net" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Off-chain transactions and miner fees X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 22:30:35 -0000 Hello all, one argument I often read on this mailing list is that it's essential to reward miners with transaction fees at some point to secure the network. Off-chain transactions, whether it's Lightning or something else, potentially extract fees, which may otherwise be paid to miners, if the transactions were actually on-chain. In this context, wouldn't it be contradictory, maybe even harmful, to aim for an environment, where some/many/most transactions are off-chain? I have not yet seen this conflict addressed in the recent discussions.