-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Interesting point of view Thomas! I agree that if we only think towards one single direction (treat trust as a super bad thing) we might miss some good features (or scalability levels) among the way.
Benjamin: > Lightning assumes explicit trust and ID - much like Ripple. That's > not going to work, and I'm surprised that someone with basic > knowledge of crypto doesn't see this problem. Having explicit > counter-parties is something very different from Bitcoin where the > entity doing transactions verification is unknowable and changes > all the time. Can explain why exactly do you think this? What is the problem that you see in lightning model exactly? I am not arguing, maybe you are right and there is a part of the lightning network proposal which I missed, so that is why I am asking for clarification here. Lightning doesn't require explicit trust, worst case scenario you can end up with coins blocked until next in-chain broadcast. It depends on each and very hub, obviously there will also be trusted, identified public hubs but we can also have anonymous hubs. On 8/8/2015 12:24 PM, Benjamin via bitcoin-dev wrote: >>> The point was NOT to trust no-one, the point was to trust >>> everyone, but keep everyone honest by keeping the ledger open >>> and publicly available. > > Trust takes many different forms and is not a binary function. You > trust a surgeon to do an operation and a pilot to fly a jet, but > not vice versa. To trust someone explicitly, you need to know who > they are. Most social structures work without explicit identity and > they still function quite well. For example companies are mostly > anonymous to the consumer - if you buy something in a shop you > trust a chain of people producing that good. A priori there is > little reason to trust others, but rather that trust is already > developed through social institutions. Money is one such > institution with specific trust problems, and the history of money > is indeed a very good way to study these problems. Unfortunately in > Bitcoin development such insights are rare to find. > > Lightning assumes explicit trust and ID - much like Ripple. That's > not going to work, and I'm surprised that someone with basic > knowledge of crypto doesn't see this problem. Having explicit > counter-parties is something very different from Bitcoin where the > entity doing transactions verification is unknowable and changes > all the time. Users of Bitcoin trust nodes doing the verification > because they know it is in their best interest to be honest. > Neither Sidechains nor LT have preserve that important property, > and so IMO there are no good proposals to make Bitcoin scale (if > that is possible at all). > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: > > I didn't say off-chain, and gave an example of on-chain usecase > with trusted middleman. > > So, no, that's not what I meant. > > Sent on the go, excuse the brevity. Original Message From: Adam > Back Sent: Saturday, 8 August 2015 09:50 To: Thomas Zander Cc: > Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] trust > > If you are saying that some people are happy trusting other > people, and so would be perfectly fine with off-chain use of > Bitcoin, then we agree and I already said that off-chain use case > would be a constructive thing for someone to improve scale and > interoperability of in the post you are replying to. However that > use case is not a strong argument for weakening Bitcoin's security > to get to more scale for that use case. > > In a world where we could have scale and decentralisation, then of > course it would be nice to provide people with that outlook more > security than they seem to want. And sometimes people dont > understand why security is useful until it goes wrong, so it would > be a useful thing to do. (Like insurance, your money being seized > by paypal out of the blue etc). And indeed providing security at > scale maybe possible with lightning like protocols that people are > working on. > > Adam -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVxeMaAAoJEIN/pSyBJlsRJFoH/RbgArUMJStQwF92XZk99dUd 0xI/VU1goFLDFiFVkrea7uNWUrWw0GM9nDq0kTIV+mTi9rTYgWKlgA1XZnPusr35 GpDhXxoG3mJmay9AX1fezrZjGmCZPCjSnPWa+BeQCSMXnVchZX0U4XZSwgD7qTIU 7o4r5JIDuGxXyPcwECnB7ePmZ8xA2QGQaMW6nnMhlA4KCanSd5/78kcpUp/kGAJ1 chjhV2g7tAeq3NMs2IXeIMiEAqji0B7RRAejviBg9CAwbpo4dP3dRz8hv/qPx6K0 Mu6jHczCQOUyAHagwG8q4+laMbkskVETw18NwluspOZi3inxvVpOD60CDqSZPS4= =ogMZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
