Daniel Newton [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2014-04-07 to 2015-10-14
💬 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 17:43:26

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-10-14
📝 Original message:You could make the same argument about changetip, coinbase, bitstamp or any
other entity that operates off chain transactions.
1) There is probably no way of blocking them or enforcing fee collection
from entities that operate off chain transactions
2) They all have to settle on chain eventually
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:37 AM, s7r via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> -----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-----
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151015/0c9e9417/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 17:43:26

- reply

2023-06-07 17:43:14

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-10-13
📝 Original message:>Again – what does Bitcoin have to do with “market liquidity” and “capital
requirements”?
You seem to be conflating bitcoin with blockstream/liquid. Your question
does not make sense.
>Does Blockstream have commercial products now?
Yes. I am sure that was always their plan in order to stay a viable
commercial entity
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Benjamin via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I was very surprised to learn that Blockstream will implement Sidechains
> for exchanges [1], [2] and has been working on this privately. Can somebody
> explain this “announcement”? Just a few comments on this “proposal”.
>
> “This new construction establishes a security profile inherently superior
> to existing methods of rapid transfer and settlement, and is directly
> applicable to other problems within existing financial institutions.”
>
> First of all, what does Bitcoin have to do with existing financial
> institutions? Secondly, what in do you mean by “rapid transfer” and
> "settlement"? Bitcoin is anonymous, digital cash. There is no such thing as
> settlement, there is only the transfer of digital cash and that's it
> (settlement is a bad word for this kind of transfer of property). If you
> make up new terms define them accurately and don't play the
> crypto-buzzword-bingo game.
>
> “This, in addition to increasing the security of funds normally subject to
> explicit counterparty risk, fosters conditions that increase market
> liquidity and reduce capital requirements for on-blockchain business
> models.”
>
> Again – what does Bitcoin have to do with “market liquidity” and “capital
> requirements”?
>
> “Blockstream's innovative solutions are definitely a game changer for the
> Bitcoin industry.”
>
> Does Blockstream have commercial products now?
>
> "These initial launch partners include Bitfinex, BTCC, Kraken, Unocoin,
> and Xapo, and discussions are underway with another dozen major
> institutional traders and licensed exchanges. "
>
> ??? so many questions and no answers.
>
> Regards,
> Benjamin
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151014/a6367810/attachment-0001.html>

2023-06-07 17:43:14

- reply

2023-06-07 15:17:31

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-04-06
📝 Original message:https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3845 (Add a method for removing a
single wallet tx)
Hi All,
I am hoping there are some who would like to review/test this pull request.
Basically it enables a user to zap individually those pesky zombie
transactions that were popping up a couple of months ago.
Best regards,
Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140407/5a97fab9/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:17:31

- reply