From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 433EC8A7 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 21:58:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pd0-f174.google.com (mail-pd0-f174.google.com [209.85.192.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 528F416F for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 21:58:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pdbfa8 with SMTP id fa8so23944403pdb.1 for ; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 14:58:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:disposition-notification-to:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=7SPlazOgn7tB+Sp3NR8I8vzwZ8B0aE9i7SuSUidaknU=; b=W3GxabwBWPDcPr6IfTpvqr7Mykz3D4eyL1G1bIoGeSxt5j9pyfhiXIu3PRFVYpVaBw JEN4UX5e6AKrzUpfzyBufqlIyiMBXX0xUtldVItC9tszz2G4A6vUgn890fXHMjFZlQy/ wyBCAuoVZdUsJReKeVz7cUlVep8rGAjvzwbqeZiXEg/2Iyp0F5tspyYlwW2hSIQaj0tV v2FvPwqZoFP4xiAgYJix5zKvNnTNuGcyW1qN1EKGo2pon+KGI1uoh/VDRpZCuFyArtYQ SHFur+cHFXmVq3mgx6eyNcej/767tmlTkIdmOoi9JnHx4iYIup+5nNscFEwFW8QOle7a GElw== X-Received: by 10.70.53.225 with SMTP id e1mr38922095pdp.23.1439157480061; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 14:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.45.134.100] (c-67-188-9-126.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [67.188.9.126]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id ft7sm12772058pdb.58.2015.08.09.14.57.59 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 09 Aug 2015 14:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55C7CCE5.10208@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 14:57:57 -0700 From: Patrick Strateman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <55C79FF0.8040100@thinlink.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060207020406040308000002" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAD_CREDIT,BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] What Lightning Is 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 21:58:01 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060207020406040308000002 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The costs of operating a hub are as follows: Time value of the funds the Hub has locked up in payment channels. Enhanced risk of loss of control of private keys (the keys necessarily need to be on an internet connected system). Operating costs (I expect this will be minimal). The hub can charge a fee for it's services to recoup these costs. On 08/09/2015 02:45 PM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Tom, my understanding is that the money that is debited from a payment > hub is simultaneously credited from either another payment hub or the > person making the payment, so that the net funds flow at a payment hub > always sums to zero. So no, there is no credit advanced by the payment > hub to anyone. > > Given Mark's previous answer of using CPFP and other tricks to pay for > the Bitcoin transaction fees, we can assume that Bitcoin fees do not > play a part in the payment channel balances. > > So, the interesting question is what are the costs of running a > payment hub? The tx fees that a payment hub would have to pay to > settle its Bitcoin transactions would be passed on as a cost to the > clients of the payment hub. Also there is a cost to locking up funds > in a payment channel (time value of money). The lost interest or > opportunity cost on those funds would need to be paid for by its > clients as well. And don't forget normal running costs such as > networking and electricity. > > On 9 August 2015 at 22:27, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > > On Aug 9, 2015 11:54 AM, "Mark Friedenbach" > wrote: > > > On the contrary the funds were advanced by the hub on the creation of the channel. There is no credit > involved. > > That's a chuckle. > > As I said, nothing requires the hub to advance anything, and if it > does, Bob can expect to pay for it. > > We'll see whether hubs assess a fee for depositing funds, whether > the fee depends on the amount deposited, and whether it depends on > the amount of time it stays there. > > I predict "all of the above." There is a name for these kinds of > fees. Can you guess it? > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --------------060207020406040308000002 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The costs of operating a hub are as follows:

Time value of the funds the Hub has locked up in payment channels.
Enhanced risk of loss of control of private keys (the keys necessarily need to be on an internet connected system).
Operating costs (I expect this will be minimal).

The hub can charge a fee for it's services to recoup these costs.

On 08/09/2015 02:45 PM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Tom, my understanding is that the money that is debited from a payment hub is simultaneously credited from either another payment hub or the person making the payment, so that the net funds flow at a payment hub always sums to zero. So no, there is no credit advanced by the payment hub to anyone.

Given Mark's previous answer of using CPFP and other tricks to pay for the Bitcoin transaction fees, we can assume that Bitcoin fees do not play a part in the payment channel balances.

So, the interesting question is what are the costs of running a payment hub? The tx fees that a payment hub would have to pay to settle its Bitcoin transactions would be passed on as a cost to the clients of the payment hub. Also there is a cost to locking up funds in a payment channel (time value of money). The lost interest or opportunity cost on those funds would need to be paid for by its clients as well. And don't forget normal running costs such as networking and electricity.

On 9 August 2015 at 22:27, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

On Aug 9, 2015 11:54 AM, "Mark Friedenbach" <mark@friedenbach.org> wrote:

> On the contrary the funds were advanced by the hub on the creation of the channel. There is no credit involved.

That's a chuckle. 

As I said, nothing requires the hub to advance anything, and if it does, Bob can expect to pay for it.

We'll see whether hubs assess a fee for depositing funds, whether the fee depends on the amount deposited, and whether it depends on the amount of time it stays there.

I predict "all of the above." There is a name for these kinds of fees.  Can you guess it?


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev




_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--------------060207020406040308000002--