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 8AC2C9B for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:59:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com (mail-wi0-f176.google.com [209.85.212.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C09B71D6 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:59:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicne3 with SMTP id ne3so189332713wic.1 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:59:26 -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=c8jectWpbOqR+LqYhWQ7lBWf0pxMSOiS2jiZg3jl02o=; b=xy1OpLn5+1wHJDF32jzSWibC4wYkXP+rPAUw+2eBhlJsgCKi294QcdqZWB2/1C+vqN 9URh5590ea37Y6mCWs5ty+gZxodNeNYgegCZX8M6526nT8qHoG7b3r8L7LRm1CCUYQMR B4AkuCReeSbnxiApkoqL+3F+ZCEYAUPn2HsFBKaRqVIG5i7Z7ZmJ/l2cWVTcxPf7KvJn ZirPXDZZwvWyToFPR2i2P7UczRi+gwhBkGoXk8dQaEGH9DusuN8Lkp7r/cSBsxvPLQu1 ksNXdAb3Ubrr1v9KhkPIvLzI2X6FhDDu2iUwLcGbZ0FHDq35kd/+phpjZ6qdSIOuqeQv 0LrQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.83.70 with SMTP id o6mr58656445wjy.44.1439319566446; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:59:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.78.207 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:59:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <8181630.GdAj0CPZYc@coldstorage> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:59:26 -0500 Message-ID: From: Michael Naber To: Bryan Bishop Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb04ade79f554051d0db386 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process 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: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:59:28 -0000 --047d7bb04ade79f554051d0db386 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Lightning *depends* on global consensus in order to function. You can't use it without a global consensus network at all. So given that there is absolutely a place for a global consensus network, we need to decide whether the cost to participate in that global consensus will be limited above or below the capability of technology. In a world where anybody can step up and fork the code, it's going to be hard for anyone to artificially set the price of participating in global consensus at a rate higher than what technology can deliver... On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not meet requirements for users > > wishing to participate in global consensus, because they are not global > > consensus networks, since all participating nodes are not aware of all > > transactions. > > You don't need consensus on the lightning network because you are > using bitcoin consensus anyway. Commitment transactions are deep > enough in the blockchain history that removing that transaction from > the history is impractical. The remaining guarantees are ensured by > the properties of the scripts in the transaction. You don't need to > see all the transactions, but you do need to look at the transactions > you are given and draw conclusions based on the details to see whether > their commitments are valid or the setup wasn't broken. > > - Bryan > http://heybryan.org/ > 1 512 203 0507 > --047d7bb04ade79f554051d0db386 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lightning *depends* on global consensus in order to functi= on. You can't use it without a global consensus network at all. So give= n that there is absolutely a place for a global consensus network, we need = to decide whether the cost to participate in that global consensus will be = limited above or below the capability of technology. In a world where anybo= dy can step up and fork the code, it's going to be hard for anyone to a= rtificially set the price of participating in global consensus at a rate hi= gher than what technology can deliver...
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Bryan Bishop = <kanzure@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoi= n-dev
<bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not meet requirements for users=
> wishing to participate in global consensus, because they are not globa= l
> consensus networks, since all participating nodes are not aware of all=
> transactions.

You don't need consensus on the lightning network because you ar= e
using bitcoin consensus anyway. Commitment transactions are deep
enough in the blockchain history that removing that transaction from
the history is impractical. The remaining guarantees are ensured by
the properties of the scripts in the transaction. You don't need to
see all the transactions, but you do need to look at the transactions
you are given and draw conclusions based on the details to see whether
their commitments are valid or the setup wasn't broken.

- Bryan
http:= //heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507<= /a>

--047d7bb04ade79f554051d0db386--