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 80C97884 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 03:31:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com (mail-pa0-f53.google.com [209.85.220.53]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F12D1B0 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 03:31:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pawu10 with SMTP id u10so130101998paw.1 for ; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 20:31:57 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=RgS4ZXq3t8bgo2M3Q8n492eEwI4NyQsuvoKgKeNhPj8=; b=vtwvTlhFe6z5NOUq2GrnYUNCKgfMHC7ks9vFAIxjUJWgv+KYPUSTTzdzxhmk+nMaRe 2vRsLQA55jErFYmb14mQcTrUo+EiYmD0dFL0BXkHi37yTvS3XLE2JAiazhU5c3RcfBI1 G6vU8durGl6sDGTEQt8092lVohvoiErOqW3DKn4r5S306WlU6dyJjnECOEmyuv3SmPyF sE/68MHvm2e5UJvlBlHmvz135Rmc7BBWvG3U0k7z5RjyCxsMSChB0BkvRq7gjBHGAsKR 12FuGIXFFQbRmAMwbGtLSH04xXVNB/LwdzKEGsNkxcjF/YAZlrQR3Bv6jsJQWd/szuWQ //7A== X-Received: by 10.68.105.163 with SMTP id gn3mr18682850pbb.86.1439177517826; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 20:31:57 -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 qf6sm5045018pbb.64.2015.08.09.20.31.57 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 09 Aug 2015 20:31:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55C81B2C.2010100@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 20:31:56 -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> <55C803D6.7070706@thinlink.com> In-Reply-To: <55C803D6.7070706@thinlink.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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] 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: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 03:31:58 -0000 > I would be surprised if the rates charged to consumers for BTC credit aren't much closer to today's BTC borrowing rates. The borrowing rates you're talking about involve the risk of default. In lightning the hubs funds are not at risk so long as they maintain control of the private keys. The rates charged by hubs will almost certainly be orders of magnitude below the rates charged on the various p2p lending sites.... But that seems fairly obvious... did I miss something? On 08/09/2015 06:52 PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On 8/9/2015 2:45 PM, Hector Chu 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. > > That describes the steady-state dynamics. I refer to the hub funding > required to initiate and maintain the ability to receive payments. > > If Bob opens a channel at his hub, doesn't use it for spending, and > Alice sends 1 BTC to the channel, her payment can only be applied if the > hub has funded the channel with at least 1 BTC. > > Yes, the hub receives an offsetting payment (from Alice, ultimately) in > another channel. But to make this work, it must subject 1 BTC to shared > control with Bob and forfeit the use of that money for other purposes > (opportunity cost) while the channel is open. The opportunity cost is > likened to gold lease rates in the LN paper. I would be surprised if > the rates charged to consumers for BTC credit aren't much closer to > today's BTC borrowing rates. We'll see. > > Burying this cost in general fees might not work very well, because > different Bobs may want different maximum payment amounts, and channels > open for different lengths of time. > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >