📅 Original date posted:2015-06-28
📝 Original message:On 28 June 2015 at 12:29, Benjamin <benjamin.l.cordes at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that naive scaling will likely lead to bad outcomes. They might have
> the advantage though, as this would mean not changing Bitcoin.
Sure we can work incrementally and carefully, and this is exactly what
Bitcoin has been doing, and *must* do for safety and security for the
last 5 years!
That doesnt mean that useful serious improvements have not been made.
> Level2 and Lightning is not well defined. If you move money to a third
> party, even if it is within the constrained of a locked contract, then I
> don't think that will solve the issues.
I think you misunderstand how lightning works. Every lightning
transaction *is* a valid bitcoin transaction that could be posted to
the Bitcoin network to reclaim funds if a hub went permanently
offline. It is just that while the hubs involved remain in service,
there is no need to do so. This is why it has been described as a
(write coalescing) write cache layer for Bitcoin.>
I believe people expect lightning to be peer 2 peer like bitcoin.
Adam
Adam Back [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ac…lswfj
2023-06-07 15:40:54
in reply to nevent1q…cqn3
Author Public Key
npub1ac86vemj7ce5z8jyxt39rna3tvwql6xd30ha3vxcd6esysp23d9qrlswfjSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 15:40:54Event JSON
{
"id": "25a2428cff585573f419619b5d8752bbe920e353d7c73c13efed534dd8c37d04",
"pubkey": "ee0fa66772f633411e4432e251cfb15b1c0fe8cd8befd8b0d86eb302402a8b4a",
"created_at": 1686152454,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"302bda6b5cc3b22bc31708bc8101794c3e35655f608a2a34ebc62e92bc3dada4",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"669055df7f853ed9a992072f4c89f9cf7a016b0b5f1a6a589284420c01fc446d",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f5854a07c480aa95b00a3106a17778f7b58221d8dd12d11e6d9465ba737bd50c"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-28\n📝 Original message:On 28 June 2015 at 12:29, Benjamin \u003cbenjamin.l.cordes at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e I agree that naive scaling will likely lead to bad outcomes. They might have\n\u003e the advantage though, as this would mean not changing Bitcoin.\n\nSure we can work incrementally and carefully, and this is exactly what\nBitcoin has been doing, and *must* do for safety and security for the\nlast 5 years!\nThat doesnt mean that useful serious improvements have not been made.\n\n\u003e Level2 and Lightning is not well defined. If you move money to a third\n\u003e party, even if it is within the constrained of a locked contract, then I\n\u003e don't think that will solve the issues.\n\nI think you misunderstand how lightning works. Every lightning\ntransaction *is* a valid bitcoin transaction that could be posted to\nthe Bitcoin network to reclaim funds if a hub went permanently\noffline. It is just that while the hubs involved remain in service,\nthere is no need to do so. This is why it has been described as a\n(write coalescing) write cache layer for Bitcoin.\u003e\n\nI believe people expect lightning to be peer 2 peer like bitcoin.\n\nAdam",
"sig": "15b475097f687c7df32dac6ad35da1c0a559b46ca0c20eb62457b010b6c27c736c59c37d01c84e9cdb084393d57a32faaf34c660d6fcdcf74b89cdc93bfe7ccd"
}