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 31217273 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:32:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from COL004-OMC4S1.hotmail.com (col004-omc4s1.hotmail.com [65.55.34.203]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B65EC112 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:32:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from COL131-DS8 ([65.55.34.199]) by COL004-OMC4S1.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22751); Sun, 28 Jun 2015 09:32:49 -0700 X-TMN: [CPdStZQiv8P0zCBCSTkRtQP4HaRMJrcd] X-Originating-Email: [raystonn@hotmail.com] Message-ID: From: "Raystonn ." To: "Adam Back" , "Benjamin" References: In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 09:32:05 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jun 2015 16:32:49.0668 (UTC) FILETIME=[128AFC40:01D0B1C0] X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RP_MATCHES_RCVD, STOX_REPLY_TYPE 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:32:50 -0000 Write coalescing works fine when you have multiple writes headed to the same (contiguous) location. Will lightning be useful when we have more unique transactions being sent to different addresses, and not just multiple transactions between the same sender and address? I have doubts. -----Original Message----- From: Adam Back Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 5:37 AM To: Benjamin Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit On 28 June 2015 at 12:29, Benjamin wrote: > I agree that naive scaling will likely lead to bad outcomes. They might > have > the advantage though, as this would mean not changing Bitcoin. Sure we can work incrementally and carefully, and this is exactly what Bitcoin has been doing, and *must* do for safety and security for the last 5 years! That doesnt mean that useful serious improvements have not been made. > Level2 and Lightning is not well defined. If you move money to a third > party, even if it is within the constrained of a locked contract, then I > don't think that will solve the issues. I think you misunderstand how lightning works. Every lightning transaction *is* a valid bitcoin transaction that could be posted to the Bitcoin network to reclaim funds if a hub went permanently offline. It is just that while the hubs involved remain in service, there is no need to do so. This is why it has been described as a (write coalescing) write cache layer for Bitcoin.> I believe people expect lightning to be peer 2 peer like bitcoin. Adam _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev