{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","title":"Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] wrote","author_name":"Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] (npub1tf…rfq0n)","author_url":"https://yabu.me/npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0n","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://yabu.me","html":"📅 Original date posted:2020-05-05\n📝 Original message:\nOn Tuesday 05 May 2020 10:17:37 Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Trust-minimization of Bitcoin security model has always relied first and\n\u003e above on running a full-node. This current paradigm may be shifted by LN\n\u003e where fast, affordable, confidential, censorship-resistant payment services\n\u003e may attract a lot of adoption without users running a full-node.\n\nNo, it cannot be shifted. This would compromise Bitcoin itself, which for \nsecurity depends on the assumption that a supermajority of the economy is \nverifying their incoming transactions using their own full node.\n\nThe past few years has seen severe regressions in this area, to the point \nwhere Bitcoin's future seems quite bleak. Without serious improvements to the \nfull node ratio, Bitcoin is likely to fail.\n\nTherefore, all efforts to improve the \"full node-less\" experience are harmful, \nand should be actively avoided. BIP 157 improves privacy of fn-less usage, \nwhile providing no real benefits to full node users (compared to more \nefficient protocols like Stratum/Electrum).\n\nFor this reason, myself and a few others oppose merging support for BIP 157 in \nCore.\n\n\u003e Assuming a user adoption path where a full-node is required to benefit for\n\u003e LN may deprive a lot of users, especially those who are already denied a\n\u003e real financial infrastructure access.\n\nIf Bitcoin can't do it, then Bitcoin can't do it.\nBitcoin can't solve *any* problem if it becomes insecure itself.\n\nLuke\n\nP.S. See also\nhttps://medium.com/@nicolasdorier/why-i-dont-celebrate-neutrino-206bafa5fda0\nhttps://medium.com/@nicolasdorier/neutrino-is-dangerous-for-my-self-sovereignty-18fac5bcdc25"}