Mark Friedenbach [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2015-08-07 š Original message:Actually I gave a cached ...
š
Original date posted:2015-08-07
š Original message:Actually I gave a cached answer earlier which on further review may need
updating. (Bad Mark!)
I presume by "what's more likely to matter is seconds" you are referencing
point of sale. As you mention yourself, lightning network or green address
style payment escrow obviates the need for short inter-block times.
But with lightning there is a danger of channels being exhausted in the
time between blocks, causing the need for new channels to be established.
So lightning does in fact benefit from moderately shorter inter-block
times, although how much of an issue this will be is anyone's guess now.
Still the first two points about larger SPV proofs and selfish mining still
hold true, which sets the bar particularly high for justifying more
frequent blocks.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Natanael <natanael.l at gmail.com> wrote:
> Den 7 aug 2015 23:37 skrev "Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> >
> > Mark,
> > It took you 3 minutes to respond to my e-mail. And I responded to you 4
> minutes later. If you had responded to me in 10 minutes, I would be of out
> the office and we wouldn't have this dialogue. So 5 minutes is a lot of
> time.
> >
> > Obviously this is not a technical response to the technical issues you
> argue. But "minutes" is a time scale we humans use to measure time very
> often.
>
> But what's more likely to matter is seconds. What you need then is some
> variant of multisignature notaries (Greenaddress.it, lightning network),
> where the combination of economic incentives and legal liability gives you
> the assurance of doublespend protection from the time of publication of the
> transaction to the first block confirmation.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150807/dd0d22a0/attachment-0001.html>;
š Original message:Actually I gave a cached answer earlier which on further review may need
updating. (Bad Mark!)
I presume by "what's more likely to matter is seconds" you are referencing
point of sale. As you mention yourself, lightning network or green address
style payment escrow obviates the need for short inter-block times.
But with lightning there is a danger of channels being exhausted in the
time between blocks, causing the need for new channels to be established.
So lightning does in fact benefit from moderately shorter inter-block
times, although how much of an issue this will be is anyone's guess now.
Still the first two points about larger SPV proofs and selfish mining still
hold true, which sets the bar particularly high for justifying more
frequent blocks.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Natanael <natanael.l at gmail.com> wrote:
> Den 7 aug 2015 23:37 skrev "Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> >
> > Mark,
> > It took you 3 minutes to respond to my e-mail. And I responded to you 4
> minutes later. If you had responded to me in 10 minutes, I would be of out
> the office and we wouldn't have this dialogue. So 5 minutes is a lot of
> time.
> >
> > Obviously this is not a technical response to the technical issues you
> argue. But "minutes" is a time scale we humans use to measure time very
> often.
>
> But what's more likely to matter is seconds. What you need then is some
> variant of multisignature notaries (Greenaddress.it, lightning network),
> where the combination of economic incentives and legal liability gives you
> the assurance of doublespend protection from the time of publication of the
> transaction to the first block confirmation.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150807/dd0d22a0/attachment-0001.html>;