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 7863994E for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 23:01:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f175.google.com (mail-io0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E3FEE8 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 23:01:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iodd187 with SMTP id d187so125207658iod.2 for ; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 16:01:25 -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=eRfyrRvmz1BStrZuvCqns2SgICD3kZQzdzny46M3LBU=; b=iZgU3ANhLap6av/UjUQyOhsKU9Cg2y7QLZ1juM1k3nxDzWzp3VxTxkVxxJJLh+1BT6 FdwgWSfw8e5Ir3wX63C/6Ki2K8wP74hAoZ1gUSC6tDn5GtGH5ZCnup+KsiY2/VOuuUGI WT2+zcykFtwfwxUU2GhTDnk7+oWo1EpZeRya88i2eZhD7fPv4qdPcg1H+1Clzcta3J4n jv4UMuAZnsPJpZATl9n63qC4Luy8c8d0ODU8E5pUSXk0XZ7/ysxTLaJHuNWiAci8EsC6 bclIbFX3ZUqtNYneefIby7NnDTd1zQrEq6GQHa07FnvaS6KaWPHKcFKCwRcgYdWXOgWN vzlQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkNjRBH44RG0iUy1qE6hDXu5XeraD5ZWS1aCahKDI1nbVPgUwWfW03pccRNRkS4mT2/ULjv X-Received: by 10.107.130.166 with SMTP id m38mr12494258ioi.77.1438988485091; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 16:01:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.158.140 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:01:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [172.56.16.232] In-Reply-To: References: From: Mark Friedenbach Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:01:05 -0700 Message-ID: To: Natanael Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113eb9c87d747d051cc09dd6 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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] If you had a single chance to double the transactions/second Bitcoin allows... 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: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 23:01:26 -0000 --001a113eb9c87d747d051cc09dd6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Actually I gave a cached answer earlier which on further review may need updating. (Bad Mark!) I presume by "what's more likely to matter is seconds" you are referencing point of sale. As you mention yourself, lightning network or green address style payment escrow obviates the need for short inter-block times. But with lightning there is a danger of channels being exhausted in the time between blocks, causing the need for new channels to be established. So lightning does in fact benefit from moderately shorter inter-block times, although how much of an issue this will be is anyone's guess now. Still the first two points about larger SPV proofs and selfish mining still hold true, which sets the bar particularly high for justifying more frequent blocks. On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Natanael wrote: > Den 7 aug 2015 23:37 skrev "Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev" < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > > > > Mark, > > It took you 3 minutes to respond to my e-mail. And I responded to you 4 > minutes later. If you had responded to me in 10 minutes, I would be of out > the office and we wouldn't have this dialogue. So 5 minutes is a lot of > time. > > > > Obviously this is not a technical response to the technical issues you > argue. But "minutes" is a time scale we humans use to measure time very > often. > > But what's more likely to matter is seconds. What you need then is some > variant of multisignature notaries (Greenaddress.it, lightning network), > where the combination of economic incentives and legal liability gives you > the assurance of doublespend protection from the time of publication of the > transaction to the first block confirmation. > --001a113eb9c87d747d051cc09dd6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Actually I gave a cached answer earlier whi= ch on further review may need updating. (Bad Mark!)

I presume = by "what's more likely to matter is seconds" you are referenc= ing point of sale. As you mention yourself, lightning network or green addr= ess style payment escrow obviates the need for short inter-block times.
=
But with lightning there is a danger of channels being exhausted = in the time between blocks, causing the need for new channels to be establi= shed. So lightning does in fact benefit from moderately shorter inter-block= times, although how much of an issue this will be is anyone's guess no= w.

Still the first two points about larger SPV proofs and self= ish mining still hold true, which sets the bar particularly high for justif= ying more frequent blocks.

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Natanael <natanael.l= @gmail.com> wrote:

Den 7 aug 2015 23:37 skrev "Sergio Demian Lern= er via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:=
>
> Mark,
> It took you 3 minutes to respond to my e-mail. And I responded to you = 4 minutes later. If you had responded to me in 10 minutes, I would be of ou= t the office and we wouldn't have this dialogue. So 5 minutes is a lot = of time.
>
> Obviously this is not a technical response to the technical issues you= argue. But "minutes" is a time scale we humans use to measure ti= me very often.

But what's more likely to matter is seconds. What= you need then is some variant of multisignature notaries (Greenaddress.it,= lightning network), where the combination of economic incentives and legal= liability gives you the assurance of doublespend protection from the time = of publication of the transaction to the first block confirmation.


--001a113eb9c87d747d051cc09dd6--