From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E0E6C0175; Tue, 5 May 2020 15:16:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D6B1868EF; Tue, 5 May 2020 15:16:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g3IKYftW_L4s; Tue, 5 May 2020 15:16:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io1-f66.google.com (mail-io1-f66.google.com [209.85.166.66]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82BA186813; Tue, 5 May 2020 15:16:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-f66.google.com with SMTP id c2so2315226iow.7; Tue, 05 May 2020 08:16:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8aOl/cmPgmnj38IvdJS80un10dnq6/S8AD4yLsCrq6Q=; b=enIvD5nHS7o/gLmfDEsKfWYqDKyWO2Ey9WbcbrQgZ+MxsOQWWn1q7+OSoXaPBv/L47 wIiDe/rkKdQiQtpO+Lro4967aKHPOom3tSyMLDYOLeArzmxXkZ4Mv5AvgD9SbndfNy5L Jml8pD3+Jm3auTwGQfoAw0vk4FTseXYtgHjAGG9U0HGMaOx2jcBsPjL70r56QeF/gR9C d6THYN+lYJ+TrlojCBCgro0UrOikIYQWsKxYeXbkOyNU75syoLAohxba6S8hVNen3J1a h1YVuH4sjSncLLH+qM7Z9jC1/KMT8u8tWd91pN1mO/UEGJihx+3Eafyy5mrwrpWkBokf JF0Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8aOl/cmPgmnj38IvdJS80un10dnq6/S8AD4yLsCrq6Q=; b=BGtc3/VWrqozEGj9hqd75DwBxNAlYNFa6zMWpLKSKqS/5CxBRsZP6WcpUDMNQ3et1U pAy5C+GcQh1BwnE3OMCssBo1k/uZIES1Ra0l8XQh2tq2mSPaVEtVz44ehBA55RWV+vG0 1WukAQEDPg2nbm91kAAXaqQOTjS2AA+mT3rkOXTLF3jNUrl0+0/1H+GPCtdIrZWiJ2n9 20P22oOk/f1vUCufbdnksBG3iSZs6VhG2DrPugviSsnAh496AjjMEhHi5R5Q7TASc1HK oEBX0Q48sRBC1+XiexymlHfPR2CF/6d6pcz0QHQTF6foXeM28xBRnpQCqYMW+fOgCHZR dUIg== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYdgCarvy1kpDjyavhFQ0pVJ1Sxbv4uq2KNGTFL0GblJ/UsWOEz wagiD/hinIf0tFAS5MEHwDC0j72CPOfl2Jfbvws= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypISjB/PzMOwjHAAWiqsHix83FxsnSPFDBuKlvDTTAQYaycpMgpGrm9Krz2j/FWhLFXWuqXCJ39CAddQqGYWK34= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:ec10:: with SMTP id c16mr3854628ioh.162.1588691787757; Tue, 05 May 2020 08:16:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202005051300.38836.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: <202005051300.38836.luke@dashjr.org> From: Lloyd Fournier Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 23:16:01 +0800 Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aabc3405a4e82181" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 May 2020 15:18:53 +0000 Cc: "lightning-dev\\\\@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the scalability issues of onboarding millions of LN mobile clients X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 15:16:29 -0000 --000000000000aabc3405a4e82181 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:01 PM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Tuesday 05 May 2020 10:17:37 Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Trust-minimization of Bitcoin security model has always relied first and > > above on running a full-node. This current paradigm may be shifted by LN > > where fast, affordable, confidential, censorship-resistant payment > services > > may attract a lot of adoption without users running a full-node. > > No, it cannot be shifted. This would compromise Bitcoin itself, which for > security depends on the assumption that a supermajority of the economy is > verifying their incoming transactions using their own full node. > Hi Luke, I have heard this claim made several times but have never understood the argument behind it. The question I always have is: If I get scammed by not verifying my incoming transactions properly how can this affect anyone else? It's very unintuative. I've been scammed several times in my life in fiat currency transactions but as far as I could tell it never negatively affected the currency overall! The links you point and from what I've seen you say before refer to "miner control" as the culprit. My only thought is that this is because a light client could follow a dishonest majority of hash power chain. But this just brings me back to the question. If, instead of BTC, I get a payment in some miner scamcoin on their dishonest fork (but I think it's BTC because I'm running a light client) that still seems to only to damage me. Where does the side effect onto others on the network come from? Cheers, LL --000000000000aabc3405a4e82181 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:01 PM Luke Dashj= r via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Tues= day 05 May 2020 10:17:37 Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Trust-minimization of Bitcoin security model has always relied first a= nd
> above on running a full-node. This current paradigm may be shifted by = LN
> where fast, affordable, confidential, censorship-resistant payment ser= vices
> may attract a lot of adoption without users running a full-node.

No, it cannot be shifted. This would compromise Bitcoin itself, which for <= br> security depends on the assumption that a supermajority of the economy is <= br> verifying their incoming transactions using their own full node.

Hi Luke,

I have heard th= is claim made several times but have never understood the argument behind i= t. The question I always have is: If I=C2=A0get scammed by not verifying my= incoming transactions properly how can this affect anyone else? It's v= ery unintuative.=C2=A0 I've been scammed several times in my life in fi= at currency transactions but as far as I could tell it never negatively aff= ected the currency overall!

The links you point an= d from what I've seen you say before refer=C2=A0to "miner control&= quot; as the culprit. My only thought is that this is because a light clien= t could follow a dishonest majority of hash power chain. But this just brin= gs me back to the question. If, instead of BTC, I get a payment in some min= er scamcoin on their dishonest fork (but I think it's BTC because I'= ;m running a light client) that still seems to only to damage me. Where doe= s the side effect onto others on the network come from?

Cheer= s,

LL
--000000000000aabc3405a4e82181--