š
Original date posted:2015-10-14
š Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 10/14/2015 6:19 PM, Paul Sztorc wrote:
> LN transactions are a substitute good for on-chain transactions.
>
> Therefore, demand for on-chain transactions will decrease as a
> result of LN, meaning that fees will be lower than they would
> otherwise be.
>
> However, the two are also perfect compliments, as LN transactions
> cannot take place at all without periodic on-chain transactions.
>
> The demand for *all* Bitcoin transactions (LN and otherwise) is
> itself a function of innumerable factors, one of which is the
> question "Which form of money [Bitcoin or not-Bitcoin] do I think
> my trading partners will be using?". By supporting a higher rate of
> (higher-quality) Bitcoin transactions, the net result is highly
> uncertain, but will probably be that LN actually increases trading
> fees.
Probably yes. But probably no. Having less hashing power is not good,
and it's unrelated to scalability and decentralization, it's related
to security. Of course we could argue that the hashing power is not
super decentralized at this moment but it's unrelated to the topic.
I'd rather have less decentralized big amount of hashing power as
opposite to less hashing power.
One theory, very close to yours, is that if Bitcoin transactions
demand grows so high that we need the lightning network, there should
be plenty of on chain transactions for miners to collect fees from.
I haven't yet seen the incentives of everyone involved in lightning
network (payment channel end points, hub operators, miners, etc.) but
would it make sense to enforce a % of the fees collected by on payment
hubs to be spent as miner fees, regardless if the transactions from
that hub go on the main chain or not?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWHtksAAoJEIN/pSyBJlsR9Y0H+QE/XdW7yauhrNJtp2eIBPg9
zVUanzR2LT0zAkeF5/Xsx3PFoypALOV7R0YNL29jI3F2XkZA8v24wfNvPi0DETcC
ZOxw4G1erIEjjj51Qz4M7okjQecJxPHOJ+Nz6iNZEDFcZG2b15phCRSQKZwSHP+b
Erw6a4NPs1foieZyk260KSOB8lFs9e8bUJfXd4FfA7l60RA9582K6p05aqVtehFW
ONTe8ULv8F0ba+EzVyTodzzY6ehjD+uc31zL6mDFIbiW+InivFbfi2uDVN1BP/US
m99lLHvDEthnkTokFrbDu81kXdD0lHwIu4O0EMzCnw2E0vWi3sGKd+M0P0sv4WA=
=1qxh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
s7r [ARCHIVE] /
npub1j3ā¦cwg9h
2023-06-07 17:43:26
in reply to nevent1qā¦07vc
Author Public Key
npub1j3u42vq63qzs2nyddgkf4s4t7pa85x855vas54e6yauxsvpf2wcsacwg9hPublished at
2023-06-07 17:43:26Event JSON
{
"id": "9f0e8fa35cd7328cc146ab4dc3322009979c2329d344d241a08923e338d1e45b",
"pubkey": "947955301a8805054c8d6a2c9ac2abf07a7a18f4a33b0a573a277868302953b1",
"created_at": 1686159806,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"80df2895366897a8010e3a393f1984e5c3ad7b56b63e36c431d30dc2c0e638cf",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"79b6c382602ba1c3fdc340172bcfbef9b7b0bfcd55617df731d9b31aaf3e93e1",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"2d2c621b81b864dedc130af9b132c76358c61951687abb64be0e287a5570e136"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2015-10-14\nš Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA256\n\nOn 10/14/2015 6:19 PM, Paul Sztorc wrote:\n\u003e LN transactions are a substitute good for on-chain transactions.\n\u003e \n\u003e Therefore, demand for on-chain transactions will decrease as a\n\u003e result of LN, meaning that fees will be lower than they would\n\u003e otherwise be.\n\u003e \n\u003e However, the two are also perfect compliments, as LN transactions\n\u003e cannot take place at all without periodic on-chain transactions.\n\u003e \n\u003e The demand for *all* Bitcoin transactions (LN and otherwise) is\n\u003e itself a function of innumerable factors, one of which is the\n\u003e question \"Which form of money [Bitcoin or not-Bitcoin] do I think\n\u003e my trading partners will be using?\". By supporting a higher rate of\n\u003e (higher-quality) Bitcoin transactions, the net result is highly\n\u003e uncertain, but will probably be that LN actually increases trading\n\u003e fees.\n\nProbably yes. But probably no. Having less hashing power is not good,\nand it's unrelated to scalability and decentralization, it's related\nto security. Of course we could argue that the hashing power is not\nsuper decentralized at this moment but it's unrelated to the topic.\n\nI'd rather have less decentralized big amount of hashing power as\nopposite to less hashing power.\n\nOne theory, very close to yours, is that if Bitcoin transactions\ndemand grows so high that we need the lightning network, there should\nbe plenty of on chain transactions for miners to collect fees from.\n\nI haven't yet seen the incentives of everyone involved in lightning\nnetwork (payment channel end points, hub operators, miners, etc.) but\nwould it make sense to enforce a % of the fees collected by on payment\nhubs to be spent as miner fees, regardless if the transactions from\nthat hub go on the main chain or not?\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)\n\niQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWHtksAAoJEIN/pSyBJlsR9Y0H+QE/XdW7yauhrNJtp2eIBPg9\nzVUanzR2LT0zAkeF5/Xsx3PFoypALOV7R0YNL29jI3F2XkZA8v24wfNvPi0DETcC\nZOxw4G1erIEjjj51Qz4M7okjQecJxPHOJ+Nz6iNZEDFcZG2b15phCRSQKZwSHP+b\nErw6a4NPs1foieZyk260KSOB8lFs9e8bUJfXd4FfA7l60RA9582K6p05aqVtehFW\nONTe8ULv8F0ba+EzVyTodzzY6ehjD+uc31zL6mDFIbiW+InivFbfi2uDVN1BP/US\nm99lLHvDEthnkTokFrbDu81kXdD0lHwIu4O0EMzCnw2E0vWi3sGKd+M0P0sv4WA=\n=1qxh\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----",
"sig": "ecd3237e196dc83b8ffae798c94aa5e605b99d8b8dad7bb2db0874ab3570fb807a2903b2dc87f1e490effd68b831024acb4998c710566cf02cf93065e64fcf41"
}