[bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit

Gavin Andresen gavinandresen at gmail.com
Sun Jun 28 21:05:10 UTC 2015

On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Adam Back <adam at cypherspace.org> wrote:

> This is probably going to sound impolite, but I think it's pertinent.
> Gavin, on dwelling on the the fact that you appear to not understand
> the basics of the lightning network, I am a little alarmed about this

If I don't see how switching from using the thousands of fully-validating
bitcoin nodes with (tens? hundreds?) of Lightning Network hubs is better in
terms of decentralization (or security, in terms of Sybil/DoS attacks),
then I doubt other people do, either. You need to do a better job of
explaining it.

But even if you could convince me that it WAS better from a
security/decentralization point of view:

a) Lightning Network is nothing but a whitepaper right now. We are a long
way from a practical implementation supported by even one wallet.

b) The Lightning Network paper itself says bigger blocks will be needed
even if (especially if!) Lightning is wildly successful.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150628/b1dc1232/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list