Live data from Hacker News

Viewing profile — josephpoon

josephpoon

HN member
Joined
Sat, Jun 13, 2015, 11:11 PM UTC
HN karma
112
Public activity
23 items

About josephpoon

No profile information was provided.

Recent public activity

  1. comment
    Comment #29670956

    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 …

  2. comment
    Comment #12092363

    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…

  3. comment
    Comment #12091958

    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. comment
    Comment #12091950

    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.…

  5. comment
    Comment #12091913

    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 o…

  6. comment
    Comment #12091903

    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 wi…

  7. comment
    Comment #12091884

    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 p…

  8. comment
    Comment #12091860

    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 th…

  9. comment
    Comment #12091842

    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 cou…

  10. comment
    Comment #12091822

    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. Bi…

  11. comment
    Comment #12091770

    Not sure why it's posted again, but we might have some announcements soon :D

  12. comment
    Comment #12091767

    The Lightning Network is blocksize agnostic. I haven't been arguing on either side of the blocksize debate.

  13. comment
    Comment #12091756

    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://g…

  14. comment
    Comment #12091749

    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. comment
    Comment #10914675

    Lightning Network for Bitcoin uses Bitcoin's scripting, as it uses real Bitcoin transactions.

  16. comment
    Comment #10914673

    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 bas…

  17. comment
    Comment #10793316

    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…

  18. comment
    Comment #10792944

    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 t…

  19. comment
    Comment #10792302

    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 …

  20. comment
    Comment #10792290

    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. comment
    Comment #10792282

    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. comment
    Comment #10792264

    > 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. T…

  23. comment
    Comment #9713121

    >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 transactio…