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
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
|
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 3168788B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 8 Aug 2015 11:08:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outbound.mailhostbox.com (outbound.mailhostbox.com
[162.222.225.22])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5ABB132
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 8 Aug 2015 11:08:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [0.0.0.0] (herngaard.torservers.net [96.44.189.102])
(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 CED71783F55;
Sat, 8 Aug 2015 11:08:22 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sky-ip.org;
s=20110108; t=1439032105;
bh=oUMpoY8cYFuKYLQb7GLT4gbYsq6lKgkkKbmZX5Ln314=;
h=Reply-To:Subject:References:To:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To;
b=AybogaYOjBQVXxygAobDA+kNh03oq5Ev1+/qFTtMj4EwOvG3rZaToGxy2mX+haMIq
dgp1h16H9JZewhmB/hQiMz4eW256Bi84Y3jMdhFlf6ZnI/zGIx9lqqIQZB/iWWthOA
sgQabT5vuEtIHsq/ixl/D1hjZG2URd9sA/H1X0Aw=
Reply-To: s7r@sky-ip.org
References: <8185694.hShCHQnpze@coldstorage>
<CALqxMTHpXymxg6ATcMM3gm73gww5tznzNsY5quNbRpzsnxS53g@mail.gmail.com>
<20150808085451.4689995.38052.4163@thomaszander.se>
<CAOoPuRYk_R+kyfyrROcL8y9Bdfq7ufsyXSH_Uva2GPGcK_jwkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin <benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com>,
Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
From: s7r <s7r@sky-ip.org>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <55C5E31A.2090508@sky-ip.org>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 14:08:10 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOoPuRYk_R+kyfyrROcL8y9Bdfq7ufsyXSH_Uva2GPGcK_jwkA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020205.55C5E329.003B, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000,
reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-Score: 0.000
X-CTCH-Rules:
X-CTCH-Flags: 0
X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000
X-CTCH-SenderID: s7r@sky-ip.org
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-BlueWhiteFlag: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=YL9iskyx c=1 sm=1 tr=0
a=IN0GVkDZBMvuYpVMTZ7cxw==:117 a=IN0GVkDZBMvuYpVMTZ7cxw==:17
a=ZDnEzkWgAAAA:8 a=-NIMs_s3AAAA:8 a=bvjBBkZ6AAAA:8 a=JAI3OqB5mnwA:10
a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=ag1SF4gXAAAA:8 a=lp1u85yg6TwYw-ONSqYA:9
a=LhxNC8mYXSY5lHdF:21 a=CAAzJie5eRfQ1b5z:21 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10
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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] trust
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: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 11:08:38 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Interesting point of view Thomas! I agree that if we only think
towards one single direction (treat trust as a super bad thing) we
might miss some good features (or scalability levels) among the way.
Benjamin:
> Lightning assumes explicit trust and ID - much like Ripple. That's
> not going to work, and I'm surprised that someone with basic
> knowledge of crypto doesn't see this problem. Having explicit
> counter-parties is something very different from Bitcoin where the
> entity doing transactions verification is unknowable and changes
> all the time.
Can explain why exactly do you think this? What is the problem that
you see in lightning model exactly? I am not arguing, maybe you are
right and there is a part of the lightning network proposal which I
missed, so that is why I am asking for clarification here.
Lightning doesn't require explicit trust, worst case scenario you can
end up with coins blocked until next in-chain broadcast. It depends on
each and very hub, obviously there will also be trusted, identified
public hubs but we can also have anonymous hubs.
On 8/8/2015 12:24 PM, Benjamin via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>> The point was NOT to trust no-one, the point was to trust
>>> everyone, but keep everyone honest by keeping the ledger open
>>> and publicly available.
>
> Trust takes many different forms and is not a binary function. You
> trust a surgeon to do an operation and a pilot to fly a jet, but
> not vice versa. To trust someone explicitly, you need to know who
> they are. Most social structures work without explicit identity and
> they still function quite well. For example companies are mostly
> anonymous to the consumer - if you buy something in a shop you
> trust a chain of people producing that good. A priori there is
> little reason to trust others, but rather that trust is already
> developed through social institutions. Money is one such
> institution with specific trust problems, and the history of money
> is indeed a very good way to study these problems. Unfortunately in
> Bitcoin development such insights are rare to find.
>
> Lightning assumes explicit trust and ID - much like Ripple. That's
> not going to work, and I'm surprised that someone with basic
> knowledge of crypto doesn't see this problem. Having explicit
> counter-parties is something very different from Bitcoin where the
> entity doing transactions verification is unknowable and changes
> all the time. Users of Bitcoin trust nodes doing the verification
> because they know it is in their best interest to be honest.
> Neither Sidechains nor LT have preserve that important property,
> and so IMO there are no good proposals to make Bitcoin scale (if
> that is possible at all).
>
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> I didn't say off-chain, and gave an example of on-chain usecase
> with trusted middleman.
>
> So, no, that's not what I meant.
>
> Sent on the go, excuse the brevity. Original Message From: Adam
> Back Sent: Saturday, 8 August 2015 09:50 To: Thomas Zander Cc:
> Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] trust
>
> If you are saying that some people are happy trusting other
> people, and so would be perfectly fine with off-chain use of
> Bitcoin, then we agree and I already said that off-chain use case
> would be a constructive thing for someone to improve scale and
> interoperability of in the post you are replying to. However that
> use case is not a strong argument for weakening Bitcoin's security
> to get to more scale for that use case.
>
> In a world where we could have scale and decentralisation, then of
> course it would be nice to provide people with that outlook more
> security than they seem to want. And sometimes people dont
> understand why security is useful until it goes wrong, so it would
> be a useful thing to do. (Like insurance, your money being seized
> by paypal out of the blue etc). And indeed providing security at
> scale maybe possible with lightning like protocols that people are
> working on.
>
> Adam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVxeMaAAoJEIN/pSyBJlsRJFoH/RbgArUMJStQwF92XZk99dUd
0xI/VU1goFLDFiFVkrea7uNWUrWw0GM9nDq0kTIV+mTi9rTYgWKlgA1XZnPusr35
GpDhXxoG3mJmay9AX1fezrZjGmCZPCjSnPWa+BeQCSMXnVchZX0U4XZSwgD7qTIU
7o4r5JIDuGxXyPcwECnB7ePmZ8xA2QGQaMW6nnMhlA4KCanSd5/78kcpUp/kGAJ1
chjhV2g7tAeq3NMs2IXeIMiEAqji0B7RRAejviBg9CAwbpo4dP3dRz8hv/qPx6K0
Mu6jHczCQOUyAHagwG8q4+laMbkskVETw18NwluspOZi3inxvVpOD60CDqSZPS4=
=ogMZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
