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">"On the = Lightning network, a large hub can't steal my money." Malicious hu= bs could flood the network. The way it is discussed now it's not resist= ant to Sybil attack either. It'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'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"><<a href=3D"mailto:lapp0@purdue.edu" target=3D"_b= lank">lapp0@purdue.edu</a>></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't mind a set of central authorities being part of an option I= F 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 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'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't necessarily = synonymous with trustlessness nor is centralization synonymous with trust-r= equiring when you'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'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--