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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A420C0175;
Tue, 5 May 2020 13:01:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 405E4887FD;
Tue, 5 May 2020 13:01:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id J90M0UQntVrJ; Tue, 5 May 2020 13:01:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C28183970;
Tue, 5 May 2020 13:01:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.lan (unknown [12.190.236.205])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5825138A0F84;
Tue, 5 May 2020 13:00:42 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan;
t=1588683704; bh=/YGWIo6yoJrL16fHNXYNGJRmtDCmXJUXZwX+B89yhTM=;
h=From:To:Subject:Date:Cc:References:In-Reply-To;
b=SHxjtHddZ9u9aJDyIJfK+0Nxhysf9L9en9/Tx9REMEu4y9KmjBqJ5G3c/uia54ggv
T6OkN83+ecEIgVLjkJXE7dh1oMrbctHz6BsDCLNHagl3AzfcBX75u+Ij457SHXkZsO
GQNzRARyD4l0cNXo8UZcGP5SEGuotABEAAQgkFrc=
X-Hashcash: 1:25:200505:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::NcPKBBKdulbJ+8aO:bk+gY
X-Hashcash: 1:25:200505:antoine.riard@gmail.com::LZcnJssDT3wjNB8P:at4KC
X-Hashcash: 1:25:200505:lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::xk9B=I5ODSrKGa+R:b7u6L
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 13:00:37 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
References: <CALZpt+GBPbf+Pgctm5NViNons50aQs1RPQkEo3FW5RM4fL9ztA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALZpt+GBPbf+Pgctm5NViNons50aQs1RPQkEo3FW5RM4fL9ztA@mail.gmail.com>
X-KMail-QuotePrefix: >
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <202005051300.38836.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: "lightning-dev\\\\@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the scalability issues of onboarding millions
of LN mobile clients
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Tue, 05 May 2020 13:01:46 -0000
On Tuesday 05 May 2020 10:17:37 Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Trust-minimization of Bitcoin security model has always relied first and
> above on running a full-node. This current paradigm may be shifted by LN
> where fast, affordable, confidential, censorship-resistant payment services
> may attract a lot of adoption without users running a full-node.
No, it cannot be shifted. This would compromise Bitcoin itself, which for
security depends on the assumption that a supermajority of the economy is
verifying their incoming transactions using their own full node.
The past few years has seen severe regressions in this area, to the point
where Bitcoin's future seems quite bleak. Without serious improvements to the
full node ratio, Bitcoin is likely to fail.
Therefore, all efforts to improve the "full node-less" experience are harmful,
and should be actively avoided. BIP 157 improves privacy of fn-less usage,
while providing no real benefits to full node users (compared to more
efficient protocols like Stratum/Electrum).
For this reason, myself and a few others oppose merging support for BIP 157 in
Core.
> Assuming a user adoption path where a full-node is required to benefit for
> LN may deprive a lot of users, especially those who are already denied a
> real financial infrastructure access.
If Bitcoin can't do it, then Bitcoin can't do it.
Bitcoin can't solve *any* problem if it becomes insecure itself.
Luke
P.S. See also
https://medium.com/@nicolasdorier/why-i-dont-celebrate-neutrino-206bafa5fda0
https://medium.com/@nicolasdorier/neutrino-is-dangerous-for-my-self-sovereignty-18fac5bcdc25
|
