[Bitcoin-ml] Mathematical Proof That the Lightning Network Cannot Be a Decentralized

[Jameson Lopp]

It's not necessary to nail down every future detail of a system that's
still being developed if you can make adjustments to it along the way.

Not sure why you'd claim LN is the only scaling solution because it
certainly isn't; perhaps you're just not satisfied with the other solutions
because they're trying to make more efficient use of block space rather
than increasing the block size?

I think it's a mischaracterization to say that users are being "pushed
into" soft forkable solutions. This is due to a fundamental conflict
between how the vast majority of software development works versus how
public consensus networks operate. Most software devs take the approach of
envisioning how they want the system to work, writing the code, and then
deploying it. In Bitcoin you have some groups of developers who also take
that approach, historically with poor results. Then you have other groups
of developers who consider the existing rules of the system to be
constraints within which they have to work in order to be able to deploy
changes; that methodology tends to be more successful.

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Christoph Bergmann via bitcoin-ml <
bitcoin-ml at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> +1
>
> If LN would not be played up as the ultimate scaling solution for
> Bitcoin on cost of significant onchain scaling we would not have this
> discussion. Raiden in Ethereum is completely uncontroversial because it
> is only part of Ethereum's scaling roadmap which includes on- and
> offchain scaling.
>
> Trying to push users to a certain vision of desirable scaling does not
> work in a decentralized system based on voluntarism. If the block size
> limit is lifted, every critique against LN will dissolve. Until then it
> will be and must be highly controversial.
>
> Am 28.06.2017 um 17:48 schrieb Tom Zander via bitcoin-ml:
> > On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 16:44:27 CEST Jameson Lopp wrote:
> >> I honestly think it's a waste of people's time arguing about these
> things
> >> because you're trying to predict the future.
> > Completely agree.
> >
> > LN is the only scaling solution the small blockers have, and its all just
> > trying to predict the future.
>
> --
> Christoph Bergmann
> Bitcoinblog.de
> christoph.bergmann at mailbox.org
> 2C18 DD55 1D85 A487 652B 943F 0693 B927 00B1 BAF8
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-ml mailing list
> bitcoin-ml at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-ml
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-ml/attachments/20170628/ab4f8d92/attachment.html>