Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2020-05-05 📝 Original message: On Tuesday 05 May 2020 ...
📅 Original date posted:2020-05-05
📝 Original message:
On Tuesday 05 May 2020 10:17:37 Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Trust-minimization of Bitcoin security model has always relied first and
> above on running a full-node. This current paradigm may be shifted by LN
> where fast, affordable, confidential, censorship-resistant payment services
> may attract a lot of adoption without users running a full-node.
No, it cannot be shifted. This would compromise Bitcoin itself, which for
security depends on the assumption that a supermajority of the economy is
verifying their incoming transactions using their own full node.
The past few years has seen severe regressions in this area, to the point
where Bitcoin's future seems quite bleak. Without serious improvements to the
full node ratio, Bitcoin is likely to fail.
Therefore, all efforts to improve the "full node-less" experience are harmful,
and should be actively avoided. BIP 157 improves privacy of fn-less usage,
while providing no real benefits to full node users (compared to more
efficient protocols like Stratum/Electrum).
For this reason, myself and a few others oppose merging support for BIP 157 in
Core.
> Assuming a user adoption path where a full-node is required to benefit for
> LN may deprive a lot of users, especially those who are already denied a
> real financial infrastructure access.
If Bitcoin can't do it, then Bitcoin can't do it.
Bitcoin can't solve *any* problem if it becomes insecure itself.
Luke
P.S. See also
https://medium.com/@nicolasdorier/why-i-dont-celebrate-neutrino-206bafa5fda0
https://medium.com/@nicolasdorier/neutrino-is-dangerous-for-my-self-sovereignty-18fac5bcdc25
📝 Original message:
On Tuesday 05 May 2020 10:17:37 Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Trust-minimization of Bitcoin security model has always relied first and
> above on running a full-node. This current paradigm may be shifted by LN
> where fast, affordable, confidential, censorship-resistant payment services
> may attract a lot of adoption without users running a full-node.
No, it cannot be shifted. This would compromise Bitcoin itself, which for
security depends on the assumption that a supermajority of the economy is
verifying their incoming transactions using their own full node.
The past few years has seen severe regressions in this area, to the point
where Bitcoin's future seems quite bleak. Without serious improvements to the
full node ratio, Bitcoin is likely to fail.
Therefore, all efforts to improve the "full node-less" experience are harmful,
and should be actively avoided. BIP 157 improves privacy of fn-less usage,
while providing no real benefits to full node users (compared to more
efficient protocols like Stratum/Electrum).
For this reason, myself and a few others oppose merging support for BIP 157 in
Core.
> Assuming a user adoption path where a full-node is required to benefit for
> LN may deprive a lot of users, especially those who are already denied a
> real financial infrastructure access.
If Bitcoin can't do it, then Bitcoin can't do it.
Bitcoin can't solve *any* problem if it becomes insecure itself.
Luke
P.S. See also
https://medium.com/@nicolasdorier/why-i-dont-celebrate-neutrino-206bafa5fda0
https://medium.com/@nicolasdorier/neutrino-is-dangerous-for-my-self-sovereignty-18fac5bcdc25