I'm glad Tom is bringing these points up. There seems to be an assumption by many that LN will be automatically awesome by virtue of it being technically feasible with having considered whether it is economically feasible or desirable.
So much stock has been placed in LN as the solution to the block size debate, yet it could turn out that it sucks in practice. Then what? On Aug 9, 2015 5:27 PM, "Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev" < [email protected]> wrote: > On Aug 9, 2015 11:54 AM, "Mark Friedenbach" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On the contrary the funds were advanced by the hub on the creation of > the channel. There is no credit involved. > > That's a chuckle. > > As I said, nothing requires the hub to advance anything, and if it does, > Bob can expect to pay for it. > > We'll see whether hubs assess a fee for depositing funds, whether the fee > depends on the amount deposited, and whether it depends on the amount of > time it stays there. > > I predict "all of the above." There is a name for these kinds of fees. > Can you guess it? > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
