Raystonn . [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2015-06-28 š Original message:Write coalescing works ...
š
Original date posted:2015-06-28
š Original message:Write coalescing works fine when you have multiple writes headed to the same
(contiguous) location. Will lightning be useful when we have more unique
transactions being sent to different addresses, and not just multiple
transactions between the same sender and address? I have doubts.
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Back
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 5:37 AM
To: Benjamin
Cc: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit
On 28 June 2015 at 12:29, Benjamin <benjamin.l.cordes at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that naive scaling will likely lead to bad outcomes. They might
> have
> the advantage though, as this would mean not changing Bitcoin.
Sure we can work incrementally and carefully, and this is exactly what
Bitcoin has been doing, and *must* do for safety and security for the
last 5 years!
That doesnt mean that useful serious improvements have not been made.
> Level2 and Lightning is not well defined. If you move money to a third
> party, even if it is within the constrained of a locked contract, then I
> don't think that will solve the issues.
I think you misunderstand how lightning works. Every lightning
transaction *is* a valid bitcoin transaction that could be posted to
the Bitcoin network to reclaim funds if a hub went permanently
offline. It is just that while the hubs involved remain in service,
there is no need to do so. This is why it has been described as a
(write coalescing) write cache layer for Bitcoin.>
I believe people expect lightning to be peer 2 peer like bitcoin.
Adam
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
š Original message:Write coalescing works fine when you have multiple writes headed to the same
(contiguous) location. Will lightning be useful when we have more unique
transactions being sent to different addresses, and not just multiple
transactions between the same sender and address? I have doubts.
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Back
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 5:37 AM
To: Benjamin
Cc: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit
On 28 June 2015 at 12:29, Benjamin <benjamin.l.cordes at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that naive scaling will likely lead to bad outcomes. They might
> have
> the advantage though, as this would mean not changing Bitcoin.
Sure we can work incrementally and carefully, and this is exactly what
Bitcoin has been doing, and *must* do for safety and security for the
last 5 years!
That doesnt mean that useful serious improvements have not been made.
> Level2 and Lightning is not well defined. If you move money to a third
> party, even if it is within the constrained of a locked contract, then I
> don't think that will solve the issues.
I think you misunderstand how lightning works. Every lightning
transaction *is* a valid bitcoin transaction that could be posted to
the Bitcoin network to reclaim funds if a hub went permanently
offline. It is just that while the hubs involved remain in service,
there is no need to do so. This is why it has been described as a
(write coalescing) write cache layer for Bitcoin.>
I believe people expect lightning to be peer 2 peer like bitcoin.
Adam
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev