1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
|
Return-Path: <adam@cypherspace.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 103B73EE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 8 Aug 2015 08:39:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A50F611C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 8 Aug 2015 08:39:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-qk0-f174.google.com ([209.85.220.174]) by
mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
0MUFgS-1ZFiCB2IwU-00R0U8 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 10:39:53 +0200
Received: by qkdv3 with SMTP id v3so44430044qkd.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 01:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.49.76 with SMTP id x73mr21443262qkx.49.1439023192492;
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 01:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.226.68 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Aug 2015 01:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8185694.hShCHQnpze@coldstorage>
References: <8185694.hShCHQnpze@coldstorage>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 09:39:52 +0100
Message-ID: <CALqxMTHpXymxg6ATcMM3gm73gww5tznzNsY5quNbRpzsnxS53g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:PK2A4toBZ5O4ScwWaGhmtqcBnS7jmSYTov1uvRPbpOKnDtIKfug
hIjuj6iMO/2a3LWibhDFNrzsuGHY1livOpDH914+LTbByP2Tkn8nbxuNerjRx9A5yzJsIGy
G6D02asmxkG9Y4diyqp1yw8FilbuuBzsakGFOdJDkVRX5lT/t+p9Rx1e9/4c+QC1j5gVJIK
1d7LxlEOR4De0LDnJlSBQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:IlsXvZE2PgE=:1qrgKlNVgz+3MxURojBI7q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X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] trust
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: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 08:39:55 -0000
If you are saying that some people are happy trusting other people,
and so would be perfectly fine with off-chain use of Bitcoin, then we
agree and I already said that off-chain use case would be a
constructive thing for someone to improve scale and interoperability
of in the post you are replying to. However that use case is not a
strong argument for weakening Bitcoin's security to get to more scale
for that use case.
In a world where we could have scale and decentralisation, then of
course it would be nice to provide people with that outlook more
security than they seem to want. And sometimes people dont understand
why security is useful until it goes wrong, so it would be a useful
thing to do. (Like insurance, your money being seized by paypal out
of the blue etc). And indeed providing security at scale maybe
possible with lightning like protocols that people are working on.
Adam
|
