Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E56EB305 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 12:37:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84654E7 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 12:37:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-f42.google.com ([209.85.192.42]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LykDJ-1Z2e2r28zX-0168n2 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:37:58 +0200 Received: by qget71 with SMTP id t71so4213993qge.2 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 05:37:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.22.5 with SMTP id g5mr22266272qkh.45.1435495077732; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 05:37:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.96.28.39 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 05:37:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:37:57 +0200 Message-ID: From: Adam Back To: Benjamin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:aHeShs1/XX55QZkkqYMm47U5CplMPkubp2ECVGlGdwYPtUMdOyI E9bxAnT9oC51bAA/Kz9ciTEtcMjkzZCjxvLYNneyF2aG7et5hNRN9JerAy0v5QiWp10MjQ0 eRR+WM7zs7Ft7rbmqidiyluo07HQsrlVv7ShrD1rW8AkWWK+w+uC53ps61MoWNhl0ADnrmS 5z/HudpDkm9mA+phqfcoQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:lZgBeoJMqsI=:AmWvOMazMxEL8uIT9sfUKB yw5Sn/X5O6pTTS9ZrLrMOfSA1NjmCFE+qInn6ELImkn9r8UnmTM1fJFzKKGBADI+n/8uupf1y kCBwsw4BtFUgdOWYPxYhw/xG0hbT+0uuHG+/2nK/FOerdvdACofxBawbKctkqxO0wt7blxFYI 9rB9Mw3iRF4wyFG5sc762rsg8IPYP9ilHyxqeUA1rkxF+blXNzljm69lLNZgd0OWMwDxLYNxT yNoQouGSQup3u1QblEXnR6D6NY5lx5Y4NSJcbJFnQi2GkNEn1EX/DNrZUqgA1uR1R6HqyP7Nw EseKOMC/AoC7EoS9gBii+SxHTD2ElJxarRRHqKDSun2lduIhEVIaPH8KU2/l8ArFwHnhlKCBv HK7tloBByU1nhWP9K4bcCLwNXdqNQcKQPqUZiiN63gYAkk4dOZsGe6YwOaSTrghdFtSuYeM5m a4vZIOh+UTc/+uV3aV+WutvL8IMesiaTHbMSCXN2J2c075xoj7Bvzs68tgirf+xsoX1vBe6wz zVvfIh2ntSZ4D9AxDrvdEuyvcewvZrrZpY/easK/qGXWC9oDTO9GiF+CmwCdbCxyYb1X7QkMt gFol+2Ldro8Fk+5I60psJ6Uy8T5wTGIfFmzJSe8VayNgtrmC9JKSWpI9HN2sh5qgPlsNfVZUk 6vvEaM8wg5L2ySknO2/ecuA58P1ZwWKP6nXs0dkC4CrJIhw== X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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 12:38:00 -0000 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