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 9BB177AD for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 18:54:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f182.google.com (mail-io0-f182.google.com [209.85.223.182]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B92B41BC for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 18:54:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iodb91 with SMTP id b91so91891156iod.1 for ; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 11:54:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=4QbNX4xas7zIoZyUuUKlTdzqYTWMfEavn+Gm9Y8r3Vo=; b=dCfNDliygEC8nDpEm6tHCqcdCg5Y7zIgBo2/nT9fK8JfvQ8b/YPqKB3kumqMM4towF 2PVMovUrOrHBFouz6ydnN2aXU5W5iXcBnHsWeBDpqnGhIgHUrl2kNhJxoYkHwKlXtr2M FVNYbsNC+00iEFRV0KGwyrGVDUCqzaRvwDVDrH3eC1Njhzcyc/xhQhc+oJKHdO2NSdyX hBLuQ849ClGhZj3rjJwK1snAQ5YakKqPf8MJlMF8MAjeCLo6bkod9fFn6nm2Lxfjdzgj kULwNMmTzuhJD45FHYhWvzZVBM6OtUGPIua5xg3DijH5aq6tbX718t36YDIe0OAtwHpG Ecbg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkY7UCxDo0K4Msy8I+GbGkFxQsLWuXvnZwTrLnwTsgy/nnS+iL6LA9Db9gBW7do0cjeqISl X-Received: by 10.107.35.138 with SMTP id j132mr20110291ioj.159.1439146465130; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 11:54:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.158.140 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:54:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [50.0.37.37] In-Reply-To: <55C79FF0.8040100@thinlink.com> References: <55C79FF0.8040100@thinlink.com> From: Mark Friedenbach Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:54:05 -0700 Message-ID: To: Tom Harding Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140f4e6d59528051ce565bb X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAD_CREDIT,BAYES_00, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no 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] What Lightning Is 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, 09 Aug 2015 18:54:27 -0000 --001a1140f4e6d59528051ce565bb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Tom, you appear to be misunderstanding how lightning network and micropayment hub-and-spoke models in general work. > But neither can Bob receive money, unless payment hub has advanced it to the channel (or (2) below applies). Nothing requires the payment hub to do this. On the contrary the funds were advanced by the hub on the creation of the channel. There is no credit involved. if the funds aren't already available for Bob to immediately claim his balance, the payment doesn't go through in the first place. On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On 8/4/2015 4:27 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > Don't turn Bitcoin into something uninteresting, please. > > Consider how Bob will receive money using the Lightning Network. > > Bob receives a payment by applying a contract to his local payment > channel, increasing the amount payable to him when the channel is closed. > > There are two possible sources of funding for Bob's increased claim. > They can appear alone, or in combination: > > > Funding Source (1) > A deposit from Bob's payment hub > > Bob can receive funds, if his payment hub has made a deposit to the > channel. Another name for this is "credit". > > This credit has no default risk: Bob cannot just take payment hub's > deposit. But neither can Bob receive money, unless payment hub has > advanced it to the channel (or (2) below applies). Nothing requires the > payment hub to do this. > > This is a 3rd-party dependency totally absent with plain old bitcoin. > It will come with a fee and, in an important way, it is worse than the > current banking system. If a bank will not even open an account for Bob > today, why would a payment hub lock up hard bitcoin to allow Bob to be > paid through a Poon-Dryja channel? > > > Funding Source (2) > Bob's previous spends > > If Bob has previously spent from the channel, decreasing his claim on > its funds (which he could have deposited himself), that claim can be > re-increased. > > To avoid needing credit (1), Bob has an incentive to consolidate > spending and income in the same payment channel, just as with today's > banks. This is at odds with the idea that Bob will have accounts with > many payment hubs. It is an incentive for centralization. > > > With Lightning Network, Bob will need a powerful middleman to send and > receive money effectively. *That* is uninteresting to me. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a1140f4e6d59528051ce565bb Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Tom, you appear to be misunderstanding how lightning = network and micropayment hub-and-spoke models in general work.

> = But neither can Bob receive money, unless payment hub has
advanced it to the channel (or (2) below applies).=C2=A0 Nothing requires t= he
payment hub to do this.

On the contrary the funds were advance= d by the hub on the creation of the channel. There is no credit involved. i= f the funds aren't already available for Bob to immediately claim his b= alance, the payment doesn't go through in the first place.

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 = at 11:46 AM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@= lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On 8/4/2015 4:27 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:

> Don't turn Bitcoin into something uninteresting, please.

Consider how Bob will receive money using the Lightning Network.

Bob receives a payment by applying a contract to his local payment
channel, increasing the amount payable to him when the channel is closed.
There are two possible sources of funding for Bob's increased claim. They can appear alone, or in combination:


Funding Source (1)
A deposit from Bob's payment hub

Bob can receive funds, if his payment hub has made a deposit to the
channel.=C2=A0 Another name for this is "credit".

This credit has no default risk: Bob cannot just take payment hub's
deposit. But neither can Bob receive money, unless payment hub has
advanced it to the channel (or (2) below applies).=C2=A0 Nothing requires t= he
payment hub to do this.

This is a 3rd-party dependency totally absent with plain old bitcoin.
It will come with a fee and, in an important way, it is worse than the
current banking system.=C2=A0 If a bank will not even open an account for B= ob
today, why would a payment hub lock up hard bitcoin to allow Bob to be
paid through a Poon-Dryja channel?


Funding Source (2)
Bob's previous spends

If Bob has previously spent from the channel, decreasing his claim on
its funds (which he could have deposited himself), that claim can be
re-increased.

To avoid needing credit (1), Bob has an incentive to consolidate
spending and income in the same payment channel, just as with today's banks.=C2=A0 This is at odds with the idea that Bob will have accounts with=
many payment hubs.=C2=A0 It is an incentive for centralization.


With Lightning Network, Bob will need a powerful middleman to send and
receive money effectively.=C2=A0 *That* is uninteresting to me.


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a1140f4e6d59528051ce565bb--