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 0F017AE7 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 21:05:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com (mail-la0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 490541F2 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 21:05:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lacny3 with SMTP id ny3so104468180lac.3 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:05:10 -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=mso+cRnLdpyhM06Qle4QGjdHrmSaO6CiHXlz2OtzIZA=; b=AfZpwkE5eGH/fEOp+lIYH8LAfx2kZJajckxoqrYR7Tq5CIuFioBg2VpuMNKZQYQheC N7ze/u7+QgjpFxIeG8pr+cbqUauQpRVituWyz4vidM2qWVR1/5lUdoUgUZ0IMOsNSZ4+ d0XYOciPiuZTtPUUucPEJFLoa2ZYN0/u+wFNulan+YlV42XZbLXYSxgVGYaLHDDS/1CG VYeiyb6JYOjqIdFvVwwNtGAqrWPvptepw9Gx1GNZTAyRZfOTlwKdr7uf6Ntn+/kxVWmn I2D1qy3oshBW8ayq9CUWN2RGd7naZ+qXir9R0Drb17wVpYxY9AiErumeoZt3LYOJRbhm iH0A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.147.201 with SMTP id tm9mr11165652lbb.40.1435525510309; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:05:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:05:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 17:05:10 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Adam Back Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b34391a1bae5105199a54b0 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 21:05:13 -0000 --047d7b34391a1bae5105199a54b0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Adam Back wrote: > This is probably going to sound impolite, but I think it's pertinent. > > Gavin, on dwelling on the the fact that you appear to not understand > the basics of the lightning network, I am a little alarmed about this If I don't see how switching from using the thousands of fully-validating bitcoin nodes with (tens? hundreds?) of Lightning Network hubs is better in terms of decentralization (or security, in terms of Sybil/DoS attacks), then I doubt other people do, either. You need to do a better job of explaining it. But even if you could convince me that it WAS better from a security/decentralization point of view: a) Lightning Network is nothing but a whitepaper right now. We are a long way from a practical implementation supported by even one wallet. b) The Lightning Network paper itself says bigger blocks will be needed even if (especially if!) Lightning is wildly successful. --047d7b34391a1bae5105199a54b0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On S= un, Jun 28, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
This is probably going to sou= nd impolite, but I think it's pertinent.

Gavin, on dwelling on the the fact that you appear to not understand
the basics of the lightning network, I am a little alarmed about this

If I don't see how switching from using the = thousands of fully-validating bitcoin nodes with (tens? hundreds?) of Light= ning Network hubs is better in terms of decentralization (or security, in t= erms of Sybil/DoS attacks), then I doubt other people do, either. You need = to do a better job of explaining it.

But even if y= ou could convince me that it WAS better from a security/decentralization po= int of view:

a) Lightning Network is nothing but a= whitepaper right now. We are a long way from a practical implementation su= pported by even one wallet.

b) The Lightning Netwo= rk paper itself says bigger blocks will be needed even if (especially if!) = Lightning is wildly successful.


--047d7b34391a1bae5105199a54b0--