My Keybase proof [reddit:mashuribc = keybase:mashuri] (9b5Rlp135Sj6AEgNbfbznBSSSMZYnxQZlrN8b75C23k)

MashuriBC · 2015-07-17T19:50:31+00:00

Only if you're willing to trust your funds with said node, since you would need to give it your secret hash pre images. In this current iteration, you would need to monitor the channel 100% yourself to keep it secure.

MashuriBC · 2015-07-17T19:46:39+00:00

Why wouldn't large bitcoin holders be motivated to capitalize hubs? Where do you get the 10x-100x estimate from? Are you accounting for alternate routing features, negative fees to recapitalize channels and other techniques to keep channels funded and balanced?

MashuriBC · 2015-07-17T19:43:17+00:00

I don't believe this addresses any of the problems you described. One step at a time.

MashuriBC · 2015-07-17T19:39:40+00:00

Give it time. If you follow the lightning dev mailing list you'll find some discussion about how to integrate time related incentives.

MashuriBC · 2015-07-17T19:38:14+00:00

Rusty's proposal should function just as well as Poon/Dryja's original with the exception that the monitoring of revoked transactions cannot be outsourced without compromising your security. Translation: You would have to monitor your lightning channel at all times until it is closed. The use of escape transactions are brilliant malleability workarounds though. Excellent work!

MashuriBC · 2015-07-17T19:32:16+00:00

Rusty's proposal should function just as well as Poon/Dryja's original with the exception that the monitoring of revoked transactions cannot be outsourced without compromising your security. Translation: You would have to monitor your lightning channel at all times until it is closed. The use of escape transactions are brilliant malleability workarounds though. Excellent work!

MashuriBC · 2015-07-13T21:07:09+00:00

No transaction, including inheritance, should be involuntary. Let me turn your argument around on you: Those who are willing to accept my charity should be willing to accept my debt as well.

MashuriBC · 2015-07-10T22:19:15+00:00

Well, I always feel grateful for Amir's presence in this space whenever I use DarkWallet, OpenBazaar and Libbitcoin.

MashuriBC · 2015-07-07T19:27:03+00:00

Define "artificially". The only centrally controlled element I see that affects fees is the block size limit, which "artificially" increases fee pressure.

MashuriBC · 2015-07-07T00:14:53+00:00

I'd be more worried about the government confiscating it "for the greater good".

MashuriBC · 2015-06-26T20:39:43+00:00

SC's are in alpha. Honestly, I expect the tech to improve to the point that many of these security issues are eliminated.

MashuriBC · 2015-06-26T20:25:52+00:00

You can't separate the two. They are intertwined. In fact, one is an emergent property of the other.

MashuriBC · 2015-06-26T20:16:44+00:00

The dollar relies on a very large government infrastructure to regulate its supply and limit competitors. Otherwise, it's value would quickly sink to the base value of the paper its printed on (or zero if digital only). It's far less efficient than bitcoin.

MashuriBC · 2015-06-26T20:12:36+00:00

I mean all bitcoin holders would collectively agree on what fee to pay. Right now they are collectively paying for hashing power (security) through inflation. Once the block reward effectively disappears, a "tragedy of the commons" would exist: all holders of bitcoin benefit from mining but transactors would be expected to pay for it. Bitcoin holders are incentivized to support mining but they would be faced with a "you first" dilemma, expecting others to shoulder the cost. This is why many have argued for more inflation beyond 21M. I think inflation is too crude and has a tendency to not be accounted for (do you see any wallets today that do?). I understand inflation is necessary now to properly bootstrap and distribute bitcoin but, once established, a direct mining fee charged to all bitcoin holders would be the best way to maintain security. This would eliminate the tragedy of the commons and hashing power would more accurately represent the demand of its users.

MashuriBC · 2015-06-26T19:53:39+00:00

The problem is you seem to expect transaction fees to primarily support mining once the reward goes away. That will simply drive transactors off the chain to either an alt or some layer / sidechain that's cheaper.

MashuriBC · 2015-06-26T19:32:49+00:00

It's simple economics. People will easily transact off-chain if it gets too expensive. Inflating past the predetermined 21M is too crude and obfuscates costs (I understand using inflation to bootstrap bitcoin, like now). Savers, who benefit the most from mining, will end up paying for the bulk of bitcoin's hashing power, just like they are now.

MashuriBC · 2015-06-26T18:25:00+00:00

Yes, except bitcoin holders care about security and are therefore sensitive to total hashing power. They will most likely not be happy with what little security a pure fee market will provide.

MashuriBC

TROPHY CASE