📅 Original date posted:2015-06-28
📝 Original message:On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark at friedenbach.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> But ultimately, lightning usefully solves a problem where participants
>> have semi-long lived payment endpoints.
>
>
> Very few of my own personal Bitcoin transactions fit that use-case.
>
> In fact, very few of my own personal dollar transactions fit that use-case
> (I suppose if I was addicted to Starbucks I'd have one of their payment
> cards that I topped up every once in a while, which would map nicely onto a
> payment channel). I suppose I could setup a payment channel with the grocery
> store I shop at once a week, but that would be inconvenient (I'd have to
> pre-fund it) and bad for my privacy.
Unlike other payment channels designs, the lightning payment channel
network allows you to pay to people that you haven't sent a pre-fund
to.
There's must be a path in the network from you to the payee.
That's simpler with only a few hubs although too few hubs is bad for privacy.
> 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?
Worried about financial institutions using Bitcoin? No. Who said that?
> And if there are only a dozen or two popular hubs, that's much worse
> centralization-wise compared to a few thousand fully-validating Bitcoin
> nodes.
Remember the hubs cannot steal any coins.
> Don't get me wrong, I think the Lightning Network is a fantastic idea and a
> great experiment and will likely be used for all sorts of great payment
> innovations (micropayments for bandwidth maybe, or maybe paying workers by
> the hour instead of at the end of the month). But I don't think it is a
> scaling solution for the types of payments the Bitcoin network is handling
> today.
I don't see how people could pay coffees with bitcoin in the long term
otherwise.
Bitcoin IOUs from a third party (or federation) maybe, but not with
real p2p btc.
Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…cl2d8
2023-06-07 15:41:00
in reply to nevent1q…xz2f
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Seen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 15:41:00Event JSON
{
"id": "2db5a2d6f9ee93c498e43c27d41d9abcfbf351e76ddb7c89ad2b8f2ae494b41e",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686152460,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"302bda6b5cc3b22bc31708bc8101794c3e35655f608a2a34ebc62e92bc3dada4",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"91df7e97dd7c857e5cf13c1db6d4272d42a6d7beede9e2b738d92cddc0b62712",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"dc329a02c970aabf03b87185ef51c86afe4586fe3a148508af898af3fabc56a3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-28\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Mark Friedenbach \u003cmark at friedenbach.org\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e But ultimately, lightning usefully solves a problem where participants\n\u003e\u003e have semi-long lived payment endpoints.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Very few of my own personal Bitcoin transactions fit that use-case.\n\u003e\n\u003e In fact, very few of my own personal dollar transactions fit that use-case\n\u003e (I suppose if I was addicted to Starbucks I'd have one of their payment\n\u003e cards that I topped up every once in a while, which would map nicely onto a\n\u003e payment channel). I suppose I could setup a payment channel with the grocery\n\u003e store I shop at once a week, but that would be inconvenient (I'd have to\n\u003e pre-fund it) and bad for my privacy.\n\nUnlike other payment channels designs, the lightning payment channel\nnetwork allows you to pay to people that you haven't sent a pre-fund\nto.\nThere's must be a path in the network from you to the payee.\nThat's simpler with only a few hubs although too few hubs is bad for privacy.\n\n\u003e I can see how payment channels would work between big financial institutions\n\u003e as a settlement layer, but isn't that exactly the centralization concern\n\u003e that is making a lot of people worried about increasing the max block size?\n\nWorried about financial institutions using Bitcoin? No. Who said that?\n\n\u003e And if there are only a dozen or two popular hubs, that's much worse\n\u003e centralization-wise compared to a few thousand fully-validating Bitcoin\n\u003e nodes.\n\nRemember the hubs cannot steal any coins.\n\n\u003e Don't get me wrong, I think the Lightning Network is a fantastic idea and a\n\u003e great experiment and will likely be used for all sorts of great payment\n\u003e innovations (micropayments for bandwidth maybe, or maybe paying workers by\n\u003e the hour instead of at the end of the month). But I don't think it is a\n\u003e scaling solution for the types of payments the Bitcoin network is handling\n\u003e today.\n\nI don't see how people could pay coffees with bitcoin in the long term\notherwise.\nBitcoin IOUs from a third party (or federation) maybe, but not with\nreal p2p btc.",
"sig": "5ae956d590e97a9c6a8983e23b2a721bf01fb87b3032be0daedbe07e840bb95b8a7dfaa21c24c3ab981f0ebaf38cadc9c7ad5e8426b61ec2a5328631c16a6376"
}