MIME-Version: 1.0
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
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit
Precedence: list

--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">&lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto:adam@cypherspace.org" target=3D"_blank">adam@cypherspace.org</a>&gt;</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&#39;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&#39;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--