On 28 June 2015 at 12:29, Benjamin <benjamin.l.cor...@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@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
