Andrew Lapp [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2015-02-25 to 2015-06-29
💬 Posted a total of 3 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 15:41:00

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-28
📝 Original message:I don't mind a set of central authorities being part of an option IF the
central authority doesn't need to be trusted. On the blockchain, the
larger miner is, the more you have to trust them to not collude with
anyone to reverse your payments or destroy the trust in the system in
some attack. On the Lightning network, a large hub can't steal my money.
I think most people share the sentiment that trustlessness is what
matters and decentralization is just a synonym for trustlessness when
talking about the blockchain and mining, however decentralization isn't
necessarily synonymous with trustlessness nor is centralization
synonymous with trust-requiring when you're talking about something else.
-Andrew Lapp
On 06/28/2015 01:29 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> 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?

2023-06-07 15:41:00

- reply

2023-06-07 15:40:22

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-28
📝 Original message:Your discussion is taking up a lot of room in my inbox and it doesn't
seem like either side is getting through to the other. Perhaps you could
create a document outlining all the failure modes possible due to the
current system, the current systems security assumptions and possible
solutions. Now it seems this is just a semantic debate and would
probably be better solved with you writing a BIP and having that
reviewed and critiqued.
-Andrew Lapp
On 06/28/2015 08:13 PM, Milly Bitcoin wrote:
> The concern with that is that any FAQ will be developed by the same
> small group that controls the github now so they will spin it in an
> unrealistic way. You see the problem now with the Bitcoin wiki.
> While the wiki has some valuable information, it also has a number of
> incorrect and cult-like claims about how Bitcoin works. Tim Swanson
> has made some good videos that describe some of the misinformation
> that often gets repeated on the Wiki and other places.
>
> I had suggested the info on the Wiki be reevaluated piece-by-piece and
> moved to Bitcoin.org but the developers didn't like that. Attempts to
> edit the Wiki often leads to the articles being defaced by the
> maintainers so that is a waste of time.
>
> Russ
>
>
>
> On 6/28/2015 5:00 PM, Adam Back wrote:
>> I think we need a second mailing list: bitcoin-process for people to
>> learn about bitcoin process.
>>
>> And someone to write a FAQ on it's sign up page so people interested
>> could at least discuss from a starting point of understanding how and
>> why it works the way it does!
>>
>> Adam
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://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

2023-06-07 15:40:22

- reply

2023-06-07 15:31:23

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-02-25
📝 Original message:Having stakeholders "endorse" blocks has, according to you, the benefits
of increasing the number of full nodes and making a 51% attack more
expensive. It seems to me it would have the opposite effects and other
negative side effects. Any stakeholder that has "won" could just be
running an SPV client and be informed by a full node that they have won,
then cooperate to collect the reward. You are mistaking proof of stake
as a proof you are running a full node. At the same time, the network
becomes cheaper to attack in proportion to the amount of the block
reward that is paid to "endorsers". Another side effect is that miners
would have a bigger economy of scale. The more stake a miner has, the
more they can "endorse" their own blocks and not others blocks. I
recommend reading this: https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf
-Andrew Lapp

2023-06-07 15:31:23

- reply