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 104E2323 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 17:53:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com (mail-wg0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 559C5D5 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 17:53:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgjx7 with SMTP id x7so50800562wgj.2 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 10:53:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Ig4gUPggsTiPXiIWMEytitjkmgi43OVUqwTAJDbUDuo=; b=kbIcCE5xBw+BRe1FbgcSs0eVWVOnLvMHCB/cF4/mhuyzF4QA+XuyQb2ohsRxMMSBiY 8fjvZ6ZFiq3eOaaHBBZ1GPoP4ODX/VG/oy4twa3vtTNlacz8dIzihHtLaIUvp1/aJi0M pvK3alQrNIBMI2eQjUk6BXcID4UhyGlwOy1ouND4MNE6nOFoce7pwsOOP7EKydfRyd3N aw528tmC4ESOF78hnWLg/PA/pyYCwcHgzADrxWbu+wFn2LClpc62RxorkV64olqkhWsa dOwP9A53zxd1Oa3PVctS9LgZcuYX4aXEgObO3uwylKFjAoNHc0ZxVBeYSsco6rFaMnCh Rb+w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmSh2cV355hDbNEV4Pa5VTDeePmyjOOf5B8Br4UNZljoUAwvtB89PKrgBZtvY3aRSEgz3/l MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.58.7 with SMTP id m7mr21052111wjq.109.1435514020934; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 10:53:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 10:53:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 19:53:40 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit 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, 28 Jun 2015 17:53:43 -0000 On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Mark Friedenbach > wrote: >> >> But ultimately, lightning usefully solves a problem where participants >> have semi-long lived payment endpoints. > > > Very few of my own personal Bitcoin transactions fit that use-case. > > In fact, very few of my own personal dollar transactions fit that use-case > (I suppose if I was addicted to Starbucks I'd have one of their payment > cards that I topped up every once in a while, which would map nicely onto a > payment channel). I suppose I could setup a payment channel with the grocery > store I shop at once a week, but that would be inconvenient (I'd have to > pre-fund it) and bad for my privacy. Unlike other payment channels designs, the lightning payment channel network allows you to pay to people that you haven't sent a pre-fund to. There's must be a path in the network from you to the payee. That's simpler with only a few hubs although too few hubs is bad for privacy. > I can see how payment channels would work between big financial institutions > as a settlement layer, but isn't that exactly the centralization concern > that is making a lot of people worried about increasing the max block size? Worried about financial institutions using Bitcoin? No. Who said that? > And if there are only a dozen or two popular hubs, that's much worse > centralization-wise compared to a few thousand fully-validating Bitcoin > nodes. Remember the hubs cannot steal any coins. > Don't get me wrong, I think the Lightning Network is a fantastic idea and a > great experiment and will likely be used for all sorts of great payment > innovations (micropayments for bandwidth maybe, or maybe paying workers by > the hour instead of at the end of the month). But I don't think it is a > scaling solution for the types of payments the Bitcoin network is handling > today. I don't see how people could pay coffees with bitcoin in the long term otherwise. Bitcoin IOUs from a third party (or federation) maybe, but not with real p2p btc.