"On the Lightning network, a large hub can't steal my money." Malicious hubs could flood the network. The way it is discussed now it's not resistant to Sybil attack either. It's an interesting idea in a very early stage. Not at all a drop-in replacement for Bitcoin anytime soon, as some imply. Blockstream shouldn't make these issues into pitches of their own tech of their for-profit enterprise.

On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Andrew Lapp <lapp0@purdue.edu> wrote:

I don't mind a set of central authorities being part of an option IF the central authority doesn't need to be trusted. On the blockchain, the larger miner is, the more you have to trust them to not collude with anyone to reverse your payments or destroy the trust in the system in some attack. On the Lightning network, a large hub can't steal my money.

I think most people share the sentiment that trustlessness is what matters and decentralization is just a synonym for trustlessness when talking about the blockchain and mining, however decentralization isn't necessarily synonymous with trustlessness nor is centralization synonymous with trust-requiring when you're talking about something else.

-Andrew Lapp

On 06/28/2015 01:29 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:

I can see how payment channels would work between big financial institutions as a settlement layer, but isn't that exactly the centralization concern that is making a lot of people worried about increasing the max block size?

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev