josephpoon

6 ms·

1.
by josephpoon 5y ago
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, systemd/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, systemd plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather ano
2.
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
3.
by josephpoon 10y ago
Cheers! :D If you have any questions, do send me an email. I'm working on making the explanation better so feedback is always appreciated.
4.
by josephpoon 10y ago
No need for username/passwords. The flow would literally be you paid? You're done. No more per-website API tokens. Pay per website you visit, you visit a lot of different websites. The notion is that you make each payment to be th
5.
by josephpoon 10y ago
The presumption would be the underwriting risk is batched and pushed to one point (the exchange point). It's economically feasible to underwrite a single transaction for hundreds of dollars to buy Bitcoin (exchanges doing AML/KYC)
6.
by josephpoon 10y ago
I thought their minimum was $0.01 last I checked, I stand corrected! Venmo also explicitly discourages you from sending money to people whom you don't have a social relationship with due to chargeback risks. They're a long ways aw
7.
by josephpoon 10y ago
Let's say you're Alice. You have a channel open with Bob. Bob is connected to Carol (OKPay). You update your channel to tell Bob, I will pay you conditional upon a proof that you paid Carol. Bob pays Carol and provides proof. If B
8.
by josephpoon 10y ago
The fun part of the Lightning Network is that you're actually exchanging bitcoin transactions. You're just keeping a local cache and electing when to broadcast it. It's flipping the double-spend problem on its head (and using
9.
by josephpoon 10y ago
Ah yeah, that's a good point, I totally forgot about them, thanks! I think the big difference here is that obviously decentralization is nice, but the real issue is that Linden could do it because they simply didn't become big eno
10.
by josephpoon 10y ago
For the HN crowd passing by, here's why this stuff could be interesting to you. It's not possible to do extremely small micropayments on bitcoin directly as people use it today. Bitcoin's made a lot of promises around micropa
11.
by josephpoon 10y ago
Not sure why it's posted again, but we might have some announcements soon :D
12.
by josephpoon 10y ago
The Lightning Network is blocksize agnostic. I haven't been arguing on either side of the blocksize debate.
13.
by josephpoon 10y ago
Our implementation will not be biased towards Blockstream's hub if they ever make one. In fact, it's designed to work in a scale-free network topology. You can find it at https://github.com/lightningnetwork/ln
14.
by josephpoon 10y ago
What are you talking about? I don't control the Bitcoin codebase at all. I don't have commit access to Bitcoin's repo.
15.
by josephpoon 11y ago
Lightning Network for Bitcoin uses Bitcoin's scripting, as it uses real Bitcoin transactions.
16.
by josephpoon 11y ago
You are wrong. Lightning works by using smart contract logic. For Bitcoin in particular, that involves using Bitcoin scripting using real Bitcoin transactions. That blogpost is basically describing lightning. Lightning Network has explicitl
17.
by josephpoon 11y ago
I agree wholeheartedly, all aspects of scalability needs to be (are being) looked at, with an eye for practicality. Hopefully, LN will reduce the load on-chain for people currently using bitcoin for instant low-value transactions as well by
18.
by josephpoon 11y ago
The paper never refers to hubs, the necessity of a handful of entities routing payments a-la Visa has never been part of the design. There are certainly more connected nodes, but that's true in any P2P system (as well as nodes with hig
19.
by josephpoon 11y ago
I'm presuming 3dfan is assuming some kind of split in merchant/exchange acceptance, I agree this is less likely, though. However, in a hardfork, you can be sure there will be some kind of forkA/forkB exchange site that will e
20.
by josephpoon 11y ago
It's already infeasible to directly make a single spend of $0.0001 on the blockchain itself (transaction fees are $0.02-$0.05).
21.
by josephpoon 11y ago
This is correct. The simplest way to do this would be to include in your transaction a spend deriving from the coinbase block reward after the fork.
22.
by josephpoon 11y ago
> It seems I wasn’t the only one with this concern as there’s been a fairly recent pivot away from the hub-and-spoke network topology to a more organic, wallet-to-wallet routing. The network is now envisioned as a more pure p2p payment l
23.
by josephpoon 11y ago
>Instead I'd rather see people try to fix the problem of it being expensive to spend bitcoin sourced from many small inputs. Lighting does this. With a single blockchain transaction, you can conduct as many micropayment transactions