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
|
Return-Path: <truthcoin@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FBAF26C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:55:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qg0-f50.google.com (mail-qg0-f50.google.com
[209.85.192.50])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6AC7F6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:55:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qgeo38 with SMTP id o38so13781753qge.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 14 Oct 2015 16:55:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=jIS1Ys+UYV8phlByIupSB63o0jnqrcWhsFoILRKf3yg=;
b=DxuxV+E8VC9XLk7YlPYuRrk2Zr5b0sKKRo7cJXywQNO8S+jAkcTfz/1HrW1FQpqZ7v
nzZwfYn6by/5erwuznUWjAtao6jMT3xPGSGOc3j2nI1zZcOIT188AjaSmXd7t8RVvEab
F4ePLZFaRx3BQCNHQ3uWGzrfDfTgIpTLXKFr6zNATCW9iRFS3qhQYAmiZTeZzxulZt51
72p0QHyo3HB26FdoEgWxivK31SFTXXYFTeh3dp1MdBUKHDeNg2s+2/2XLjf8oiBppu7J
3WRP6AtNWT7vzJBaLcKARIwNqlQZ3lDDkYgVD0EVz8Sr5yRsKaxo/go/6Ea0f9VGkVW+
9FGA==
X-Received: by 10.140.237.14 with SMTP id i14mr8077988qhc.28.1444866923880;
Wed, 14 Oct 2015 16:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (ool-4575fa8d.dyn.optonline.net.
[69.117.250.141]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
c188sm4353328qka.37.2015.10.14.16.55.22
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Wed, 14 Oct 2015 16:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
To: s7r@sky-ip.org, bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <561E2B09.3090509@sky-ip.org> <561E7283.2080507@gmail.com>
<561ED92C.2090203@sky-ip.org>
From: Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <561EEB5C.3000500@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:55:08 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <561ED92C.2090203@sky-ip.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Lightning Network's effect on miner fees
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: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:55:25 -0000
On 10/14/2015 6:37 PM, s7r wrote:
> On 10/14/2015 6:19 PM, Paul Sztorc wrote:
> > LN transactions are a substitute good for on-chain transactions.
>
> > Therefore, demand for on-chain transactions will decrease as a
> > result of LN, meaning that fees will be lower than they would
> > otherwise be.
>
> > However, the two are also perfect compliments, as LN transactions
> > cannot take place at all without periodic on-chain transactions.
>
> > The demand for *all* Bitcoin transactions (LN and otherwise) is
> > itself a function of innumerable factors, one of which is the
> > question "Which form of money [Bitcoin or not-Bitcoin] do I think
> > my trading partners will be using?". By supporting a higher rate of
> > (higher-quality) Bitcoin transactions, the net result is highly
> > uncertain, but will probably be that LN actually increases trading
> > fees.
>
> Probably yes. But probably no. Having less hashing power is not good,
> and it's unrelated to scalability and decentralization, it's related
> to security. Of course we could argue that the hashing power is not
> super decentralized at this moment but it's unrelated to the topic.
Who are you talking to? Who said anything about any of this? If you are
talking to me, please don't imply that I don't already know these things.=
>
> I'd rather have less decentralized big amount of hashing power as
> opposite to less hashing power.
>
> One theory, very close to yours, is that if Bitcoin transactions
> demand grows so high that we need the lightning network, there should
> be plenty of on chain transactions for miners to collect fees from.
For a given fee amount, LN transactions are worse than on-chain
transactions. So people would only use LN if they preferred cheaper txns.=
>
> I haven't yet seen the incentives of everyone involved in lightning
> network (payment channel end points, hub operators, miners, etc.) but
> would it make sense to enforce a % of the fees collected by on payment
> hubs to be spent as miner fees, regardless if the transactions from
> that hub go on the main chain or not?
If you want fees to go up, either decrease supply (lower the blocksize
limit) or increase demand (a popular Bitcoin). There's no need to do
anything roundabout.
Regards,
Paul
|
