rich1.0npub170s9de2ganthnna75443h70tnsn2lvmcq5365r0juk8nfa93lthqwjr45xhttps://nostr.ae/npub170s9de2ganthnna75443h70tnsn2lvmcq5365r0juk8nfa93lthqwjr45xnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-09 📝 Original message:In the Lightning network it is assumed that the balances can always be settled on the blockchain if any of the parties along the channel has a problem. What if the fee on the settlement transactions is not high enough to enter the blockchain? You can't do replace-by-fee after the fact. Do the fees always have to assume worst case scenarios on the Bitcoin fee market? On 9 August 2015 at 19:54, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Tom, you appear to be misunderstanding how lightning network and > micropayment hub-and-spoke models in general work. > > > But neither can Bob receive money, unless payment hub has > advanced it to the channel (or (2) below applies). Nothing requires the > payment hub to do this. > > On the contrary the funds were advanced by the hub on the creation of the > channel. There is no credit involved. if the funds aren't already available > for Bob to immediately claim his balance, the payment doesn't go through in > the first place. > > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> On 8/4/2015 4:27 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> >> > Don't turn Bitcoin into something uninteresting, please. >> >> Consider how Bob will receive money using the Lightning Network. >> >> Bob receives a payment by applying a contract to his local payment >> channel, increasing the amount payable to him when the channel is closed. >> >> There are two possible sources of funding for Bob's increased claim. >> They can appear alone, or in combination: >> >> >> Funding Source (1) >> A deposit from Bob's payment hub >> >> Bob can receive funds, if his payment hub has made a deposit to the >> channel. Another name for this is "credit". >> >> This credit has no default risk: Bob cannot just take payment hub's >> deposit. But neither can Bob receive money, unless payment hub has >> advanced it to the channel (or (2) below applies). Nothing requires the >> payment hub to do this. >> >> This is a 3rd-party dependency totally absent with plain old bitcoin. >> It will come with a fee and, in an important way, it is worse than the >> current banking system. If a bank will not even open an account for Bob >> today, why would a payment hub lock up hard bitcoin to allow Bob to be >> paid through a Poon-Dryja channel? >> >> >> Funding Source (2) >> Bob's previous spends >> >> If Bob has previously spent from the channel, decreasing his claim on >> its funds (which he could have deposited himself), that claim can be >> re-increased. >> >> To avoid needing credit (1), Bob has an incentive to consolidate >> spending and income in the same payment channel, just as with today's >> banks. This is at odds with the idea that Bob will have accounts with >> many payment hubs. It is an incentive for centralization. >> >> >> With Lightning Network, Bob will need a powerful middleman to send and >> receive money effectively. *That* is uninteresting to me. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150809/749c2207/attachment.html>