3 ms·
Sorry Greg! I didn't mean it in the sense that Blockstream is planning for a hub at all! I was being sarcastic, but perhaps that wasn't conveyed properly in tex
by josephpoon 10y ago
Sorry Greg! I didn't mean it in the sense that Blockstream is planning for a hub at all! I was being sarcastic, but perhaps that wasn't conveyed properly in text. I thought the "if they ever make one" was sufficient, but it didn't properly convey the cultural apprehension towards those types of systems and could be seen as deeply disrespectful. We were definitely in agreement from the start that decentralization in the protocol layer was immensely important.
I thought it was obvious that the parent poster was being ridiculous, but should've ended the post with :^)
- nullc 10y agoNo problem! Understood. It's a bit tough with so much crap being flung to stay clear of it. :)
- ptokb3 10y agonullc, I'll take your word for it that Blockstream will never run a Lightning network hub. We understand how the Lightning network works and you also have to admit that it has the potential to centralize into a few large hubs -- even if they aren't by Blockstream -- that will be able to provide the lowest transaction costs in order to keep track of user transaction data. The problem with Lightning is that it's really far off, and it might not even work. Meanwhile the network is breaking at the edges while we wait for this pie-in-the-sky solution. Increasing the blocksize is the best approach and it's safe to do as a hard-fork. The delay and push back from CoreDevs is what makes people not trust you. We've had enough "my transaction didn't confirm" posts.
- cypherdoc 10y agoyou should ask him why Blockstream charges for running Liquid, a federated sidechains hub. sidechains was supposed to be p2p based on an SPV Proof model, but alas.