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 2D8CD273 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 17:29:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f52.google.com (mail-la0-f52.google.com [209.85.215.52]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40F21A8 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 17:29:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lagx9 with SMTP id x9so102016750lag.1 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 10:29:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=SS5/rIjlozE969RF0v8r3CnlSQnan8OYLJe414GhXl4=; b=VX7VzCmbl3K9hulcK7ZJ1Vj03isq4AayY4vB7QDqfvkW/xG9K0BlG9E9mmfcvOr+H/ ZJAvaMR64g93JkNLkE3yvZgiGh9VLK0bG2ScMii3F6vYzag/Zw7K4uomp6LcBWHruKGQ k7AuvdAzss9Md1geOcOCViwHrEXTJioABmeb2yUDHHvahUzhG7Bg1WVfKVarXt87eEqP sdi+9fWd4Qrv6b5RsSgnV+bgvyZ8HdRxWaBNSytSBuk3nkQzKKeihduQuMX2p8Eh1joc AGU+63UizsVqOvaiKAWPTa8JTTMwJJ4SnWL4SOydyJ+lKEhS3NL9eOT+0Zbuu6ouM7P0 +p7A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.164.193 with SMTP id ys1mr10515978lab.65.1435512550452; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 10:29:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 10:29:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:29:10 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Mark Friedenbach Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133c258a3f6410519974fb6 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 17:29:13 -0000 --001a1133c258a3f6410519974fb6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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. 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? 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. 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. -- -- Gavin Andresen --001a1133c258a3f6410519974fb6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On S= un, Jun 28, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org= > wrote:
But ultimately, lightn= ing usefully solves a problem where participants have semi-long lived payme= nt endpoints.

Very few of my own personal Bitcoin tra= nsactions fit that use-case.

In fact, very few of my own personal dollar transact= ions fit that use-case (I suppose if I was addicted to Starbucks I'd ha= ve 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 paymen= t channel with the grocery store I shop at once a week, but that would be i= nconvenient (I'd have to pre-fund it) and bad for my privacy.

I can see how p= ayment channels would work between big financial institutions as a settleme= nt layer, but isn't that exactly the centralization concern that is mak= ing a lot of people worried about increasing the max block size?

And= if there are only a dozen or two popular hubs, that's much worse centr= alization-wise compared to a few thousand fully-validating Bitcoin nodes.

Don'= ;t get me wrong, I think the Lightning Network is a fantastic idea and a gr= eat experiment and will likely be used for all sorts of great payment innov= ations (micropayments for bandwidth maybe, or maybe paying workers by the h= our instead of at the end of the month). But I don't think it is a scal= ing solution for the types of payments the Bitcoin network is handling toda= y.

--
--=
Gavin Andresen

--001a1133c258a3f6410519974fb6--