Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 978C9AE7 for ; 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 ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 19:40:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by oigx81 with SMTP id x81so105402512oig.1 for ; 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: <5590498D.6010406@purdue.edu> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 21:40:20 +0200 Message-ID: From: Benjamin To: Andrew Lapp 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 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
"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.

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 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.

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.

-Andrew Lapp

On 06/28/2015 01:29 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
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?

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--e89a8ff25464b943b205199924d1--