From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7C71C0001 for ; Mon, 24 May 2021 21:55:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A619A83BB6 for ; Mon, 24 May 2021 21:55:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.3 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RQHYX2FZXd3F for ; Mon, 24 May 2021 21:55:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-pf1-x42c.google.com (mail-pf1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42c]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D745783657 for ; Mon, 24 May 2021 21:55:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id 22so21563266pfv.11 for ; Mon, 24 May 2021 14:55:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aArhRayk/eWaOZ1jAPiTcmkAlRmEAaSchLRdYFboz3g=; b=HkN9pgOp1F1pIKI7nWohO0VzKSf6hQmnjp/KqzkLtIm5E/+zt4sIMYNjBPpf02Ud65 S4AXLbZo9ZkxkKwYOYnJHWz+2AO8xXfsGXolJbeweXcaOQShERCzTpX7vYpRMDk0BcIm lmPblAMhc2BOXi/tXWbSSFq4aMiFc2YsairjBC/2aDKzYn9xaU+NuMjTNiwddHYbcQY6 fR1KDvgQbFxrBl5ehJEu+pIblN7AhlxiBur8FHGAGkQiYnbVpXrAUua0Lh1y0OOliyNZ KXixNX0RnRG2TADsmmViF+0PX2dS4sMR7Nax4ZjLFbK8FG+08X1KZ+0lxE8XjPsB6te/ bggA== 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aArhRayk/eWaOZ1jAPiTcmkAlRmEAaSchLRdYFboz3g=; b=rO6DlmR+RRU5c4cQThVzlC91o2mpe/PBDV7t6YEmEgBRjn2I877AA6rM000/IpDH59 W6GsleWiXtxnmV+J6adAnwgCj9B/x14ZGR7nkYorzI7mFMNxzKaKvWkuG10I2eXTpGIN XJ3+3/l/KS9F+vMqQ6W9IEg1zruQP+gY+4Xylv2Bv9CpmY8b9cAontMCfX4VBGVMOLOJ 2xMA9GavhLrp8BTTb19VDXGMHZstms3LtxeyHFcbQCn+mamPINuuPdqNG2Rv1OAwScut HNVwSWbXM9wQmuwIOXRpV98ehjLEZjqd6o4WNaJZmVvY478hXUUCcPzFm467/lMJOfIk ueHA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533KDainNvFdBQsQM/t+ascKszLpZhRYr+RrVrXUojAETdOLVpLP tXcZatSjUkPsccSY7uGPu1d31o7iob1j2XlwBLH1n6s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJztkAx82M7vpFiuz1mEzDTOApvnWcgEUN92AAwCvSqh/f2av0zhUocekbTJRi3oNZJqKTclK9OCtz6wcoq37xU= X-Received: by 2002:a63:9350:: with SMTP id w16mr15781549pgm.53.1621893325336; Mon, 24 May 2021 14:55:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Erik Aronesty Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 17:55:14 -0400 Message-ID: To: Billy Tetrud , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 25 May 2021 08:34:20 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Reducing block reward via soft fork 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: Mon, 24 May 2021 21:55:27 -0000 > > I don't think 99% of transactions need that level of security > Well you can't get security for the 1% of transactions that need it with= out giving that security to all transactions on the chain. Also, the blockc= hain security created by miners isn't really a per transaction thing anyway= . An attack would affect all bitcoins regardless of what transactions they = do or do not take part in. yes, and this is what lightning is for. to secure the 99% of transactions that *don't* need billions of dollars and years in lead time of security. at current prices, and even with the current known issues, lightning is perfectly acceptable for small transactions.