ð
Original date posted:2015-08-09
ð Original message:Ok good. We have established it to be a non-trivial cost.
Now, what is the growth complexity of the total cost of the network in
terms of number of connections each hub has to other hubs? And then,
consider a payment channel with many hops in it. The end-to-end users would
have to swallow all the costs of the hubs in the channel.
On 9 August 2015 at 22:57, Patrick Strateman via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> The costs of operating a hub are as follows:
>
> Time value of the funds the Hub has locked up in payment channels.
> Enhanced risk of loss of control of private keys (the keys necessarily
> need to be on an internet connected system).
> Operating costs (I expect this will be minimal).
>
> The hub can charge a fee for it's services to recoup these costs.
>
>
> On 08/09/2015 02:45 PM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> Tom, my understanding is that the money that is debited from a payment hub
> is simultaneously credited from either another payment hub or the person
> making the payment, so that the net funds flow at a payment hub always sums
> to zero. So no, there is no credit advanced by the payment hub to anyone.
>
> Given Mark's previous answer of using CPFP and other tricks to pay for the
> Bitcoin transaction fees, we can assume that Bitcoin fees do not play a
> part in the payment channel balances.
>
> So, the interesting question is what are the costs of running a payment
> hub? The tx fees that a payment hub would have to pay to settle its Bitcoin
> transactions would be passed on as a cost to the clients of the payment
> hub. Also there is a cost to locking up funds in a payment channel (time
> value of money). The lost interest or opportunity cost on those funds would
> need to be paid for by its clients as well. And don't forget normal running
> costs such as networking and electricity.
>
> On 9 August 2015 at 22:27, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 9, 2015 11:54 AM, "Mark Friedenbach" <mark at friedenbach.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On the contrary the funds were advanced by the hub on the creation of
>> the channel. There is no credit involved.
>>
>> That's a chuckle.
>>
>> As I said, nothing requires the hub to advance anything, and if it does,
>> Bob can expect to pay for it.
>>
>> We'll see whether hubs assess a fee for depositing funds, whether the fee
>> depends on the amount deposited, and whether it depends on the amount of
>> time it stays there.
>>
>> I predict "all of the above." There is a name for these kinds of fees.
>> Can you guess it?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing listbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.orghttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150809/ab206edd/attachment.html>;
Hector Chu [ARCHIVE] /
npub170âŠjr45x
2023-06-07 17:33:06
in reply to nevent1qâŠ8752
Author Public Key
npub170s9de2ganthnna75443h70tnsn2lvmcq5365r0juk8nfa93lthqwjr45xPublished at
2023-06-07 17:33:06Event JSON
{
"id": "4d64f5504fa2bb9fed29ddc8599113053795946fb5d7756f900500c748710bc2",
"pubkey": "f3e056e548ecd779cfbea56b1bf9eb9c26afb3780523aa0df2e58f34f4b1faee",
"created_at": 1686159186,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c33253e971194f2c7907c001b126807e52ef4e506229e6eaa41e873f7674b436",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6b90a6107dacea3fef3e2fbb9809bc4d4873670500828560860452e0b472ef35",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"fc7892eea47289e31dc49660ebe7f00108707eb2ee3b59909accdf0afaa4eb61"
]
],
"content": "ð
Original date posted:2015-08-09\nð Original message:Ok good. We have established it to be a non-trivial cost.\nNow, what is the growth complexity of the total cost of the network in\nterms of number of connections each hub has to other hubs? And then,\nconsider a payment channel with many hops in it. The end-to-end users would\nhave to swallow all the costs of the hubs in the channel.\n\nOn 9 August 2015 at 22:57, Patrick Strateman via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e The costs of operating a hub are as follows:\n\u003e\n\u003e Time value of the funds the Hub has locked up in payment channels.\n\u003e Enhanced risk of loss of control of private keys (the keys necessarily\n\u003e need to be on an internet connected system).\n\u003e Operating costs (I expect this will be minimal).\n\u003e\n\u003e The hub can charge a fee for it's services to recoup these costs.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On 08/09/2015 02:45 PM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e Tom, my understanding is that the money that is debited from a payment hub\n\u003e is simultaneously credited from either another payment hub or the person\n\u003e making the payment, so that the net funds flow at a payment hub always sums\n\u003e to zero. So no, there is no credit advanced by the payment hub to anyone.\n\u003e\n\u003e Given Mark's previous answer of using CPFP and other tricks to pay for the\n\u003e Bitcoin transaction fees, we can assume that Bitcoin fees do not play a\n\u003e part in the payment channel balances.\n\u003e\n\u003e So, the interesting question is what are the costs of running a payment\n\u003e hub? The tx fees that a payment hub would have to pay to settle its Bitcoin\n\u003e transactions would be passed on as a cost to the clients of the payment\n\u003e hub. Also there is a cost to locking up funds in a payment channel (time\n\u003e value of money). The lost interest or opportunity cost on those funds would\n\u003e need to be paid for by its clients as well. And don't forget normal running\n\u003e costs such as networking and electricity.\n\u003e\n\u003e On 9 August 2015 at 22:27, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Aug 9, 2015 11:54 AM, \"Mark Friedenbach\" \u003cmark at friedenbach.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e On the contrary the funds were advanced by the hub on the creation of\n\u003e\u003e the channel. There is no credit involved.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e That's a chuckle.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e As I said, nothing requires the hub to advance anything, and if it does,\n\u003e\u003e Bob can expect to pay for it.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e We'll see whether hubs assess a fee for depositing funds, whether the fee\n\u003e\u003e depends on the amount deposited, and whether it depends on the amount of\n\u003e\u003e time it stays there.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I predict \"all of the above.\" There is a name for these kinds of fees.\n\u003e\u003e Can you guess it?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing listbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.orghttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150809/ab206edd/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "cf764e3b2ebb726d66e47cc0a92d0b6a2a4821bc1d069410e9a524b8f0d131c2213dccc4a50be917878f4ca30c901a5b4fe44175ff8ead0affbf17f9cb338461"
}