From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 978C9AE7
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sun, 28 Jun 2015 19:40:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-oi0-f52.google.com (mail-oi0-f52.google.com
	[209.85.218.52])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB4D2A7
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sun, 28 Jun 2015 19:40:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by oigx81 with SMTP id x81so105402512oig.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sun, 28 Jun 2015 12:40:20 -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=EMWlnbh39DOe8C3xs6pZQK9I1Uo/diOMA8nLChfzDLc=;
	b=yJqWsXUcdiu7vAHVYhDvabQxWxQ+BjdXWjtrtJlbhexOhNbM5T6wMP9oiVJmaZJPv9
	P07eW576R6BIEsbCzv6dwBk2ewVVeB9tY8L5Inj3x6GkgJmybhIL1XLNJvGwa4+PU7X4
	pSibl5noSmdMUQklK5TX0Vf3w8En86GSjSgUuWRFLFDM92PKUOgTrKVOsu6Z5BDKK246
	163jOI3pCVSQKo9PclV8Pl4QzpDOd6EByTtvrcfuOWsY29K8cARzkUc990j3Bpo8/RlW
	1x49A5QaiBlrI4LCqGeMyHOdfMcRG+vMZrS/McdUxOkOSkyP09jnhMbAf74Mqsjp0DG2
	54Xw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.143.5 with SMTP id sa5mr8191023obb.62.1435520420363;
	Sun, 28 Jun 2015 12:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.87.197 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 12:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5590498D.6010406@purdue.edu>
References: <COL402-EAS1148599DFFBB257C33F293ACDAB0@phx.gbl>
	<CALqxMTHbeyyVAO9qXO4wrQo3sCh89gwMRS9BjiN+4iMs-bt5ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOoPuRarNoPwLxVqjJ_g4b6HsWJecB-oCdfEjaknKbUnKdnmEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALqxMTGXcbES5Pwz3cWO+PQK5kmf3rZ_i00=b=PBnO678XuF0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<COL131-DS8E3DCDBD1A0F359206781CDAB0@phx.gbl>
	<CAOG=w-swydsyzHx7kWKCCWnrDT0kG=c+FTDmwFD3sjbA0i4TpA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T3PaBcYkXWyn=TmCROn61CGkEYD9qxob6hKGdD3sy-SyQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5590498D.6010406@purdue.edu>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 21:40:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOoPuRY7Tdu2mkZWSt4bJayN1eqvP5AH3vQUcbqzS9O-UPewow@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benjamin <benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Lapp <lapp0@purdue.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff25464b943b205199924d1
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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 19:40:21 -0000

--e89a8ff25464b943b205199924d1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

"On the Lightning network, a large hub can't steal my money." Malicious
hubs could flood the network. The way it is discussed now it's not
resistant to Sybil attack either. It's an interesting idea in a very early
stage. Not at all a drop-in replacement for Bitcoin anytime soon, as some
imply. Blockstream shouldn't make these issues into pitches of their own
tech of their for-profit enterprise.

On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Andrew Lapp <lapp0@purdue.edu> wrote:

> I don't mind a set of central authorities being part of an option IF the
> central authority doesn't need to be trusted. On the blockchain, the larger
> miner is, the more you have to trust them to not collude with anyone to
> reverse your payments or destroy the trust in the system in some attack. On
> the Lightning network, a large hub can't steal my money.
>
> I think most people share the sentiment that trustlessness is what matters
> and decentralization is just a synonym for trustlessness when talking about
> the blockchain and mining, however decentralization isn't necessarily
> synonymous with trustlessness nor is centralization synonymous with
> trust-requiring when you're talking about something else.
>
> -Andrew Lapp
>
> On 06/28/2015 01:29 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
>
>> I can see how payment channels would work between big financial
>> institutions as a settlement layer, but isn't that exactly the
>> centralization concern that is making a lot of people worried about
>> increasing the max block size?
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--e89a8ff25464b943b205199924d1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px">&quot;On the =
Lightning network, a large hub can&#39;t steal my money.&quot; Malicious hu=
bs could flood the network. The way it is discussed now it&#39;s not resist=
ant to Sybil attack either. It&#39;s an interesting idea in a very early st=
age. Not at all a drop-in replacement for Bitcoin anytime soon, as some imp=
ly. Blockstream shouldn&#39;t make these issues into pitches of their own t=
ech of their for-profit enterprise.</span><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_ext=
ra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Andrew =
Lapp <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:lapp0@purdue.edu" target=3D"_b=
lank">lapp0@purdue.edu</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1=
ex">I don&#39;t mind a set of central authorities being part of an option I=
F the central authority doesn&#39;t need to be trusted. On the blockchain, =
the larger miner is, the more you have to trust them to not collude with an=
yone to reverse your payments or destroy the trust in the system in some at=
tack. On the Lightning network, a large hub can&#39;t steal my money.<br>
<br>
I think most people share the sentiment that trustlessness is what matters =
and decentralization is just a synonym for trustlessness when talking about=
 the blockchain and mining, however decentralization isn&#39;t necessarily =
synonymous with trustlessness nor is centralization synonymous with trust-r=
equiring when you&#39;re talking about something else.<span class=3D"HOEnZb=
"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
<br>
-Andrew Lapp</font></span><span class=3D"im HOEnZb"><br>
<br>
On 06/28/2015 01:29 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I can see how payment channels would work between big financial institution=
s as a settlement layer, but isn&#39;t that exactly the centralization conc=
ern that is making a lot of people worried about increasing the max block s=
ize?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--e89a8ff25464b943b205199924d1--