So they wanted to protect decentralization from a 2MB maxblocksize by pushing soft fork segwit which allows a 4MB multisig attack surface, makes sense.
Apples and oranges. I'll assume that you got that "attack surface" from either /r/btc or one of the "less popular" forums.
Don't call non-segwit nodes full nodes either, because they aren't validating all tx on the Bitcoin network, like a full node would. The term "attack surface" was actually taken from the 1MB4EVA crowd very early in this debate. Back when they argued that having 2MB blocks provided a larger attack surface for tx "spammers". They stopped calling it that, or indeed arguing for 1MB4EVA once we found out that segwit would be up to 4MB for 1.7X the amount of tx's.
Because your argument does not make sense. The answer to that question is yes.
Sooo, it is comparably more burden on precious rasb pi full economic nodes to allow 4MB in an adversarial attack by a dastardly spammer. This is oranges to oranges, 2MB vs 4MB, and your argument had fallen apart from the very beginning. Unfortunate you didn't notice.
The term "attack surface" was actually taken from the 1MB4EVA crowd very early in this debate. Back when they argued that having 2MB blocks provided a larger attack surface for tx "spammers". They stopped calling it that, or indeed arguing for 1MB4EVA once we found out that segwit would be up to 4MB for 1.7X the amount of tx's.
Okay things that are wrong here: Nobody defined what this "attack surface is". Just because 4 MB of data can be transmitted that does not mean that it is an attack vector. Additionally, if there were a total of 4 MB of data transmitted (everything was multisig), the "1.7x" doesn't apply as that goes only for standard PSH transactions.
There would be much more capacity in that single block.Wrong things here:
1. I just told you who used that term first, and in which context, please try to keep up. If blocks are mostly full of spam (citation: Luke-Jr), a bigger blocksize, or effectively bigger blocksize with segwit allows a bigger attack surface for the dastardly spammer.
2. Segwit adds space by removing signatures from segwit tx and placing them somewhere else, segwit multi-sig tx would have big signatures. In a sense I was being generous, you could fill 4MB with
much less than 1.7x the amount of raw transactions from A to B.
Can you confirm that Blockstream will not be operating highly connected and well funded LN hubs?
No. You can't forbid anyone from creating a hub, else the system would lose its credibility.
I wasn't talking about "forbidding" them, that's silly. More wondering if a statement from Blockstream had been made that they wouldn't be
directly profiting (at the expense of miners) from the network topology they are steering us toward.
Anyone who decides to run a Lightning Hub will directly receive the TX fees from within LN.
Ah, more declarative statements. This is orthogonal to the issue I raised. Yes, if Blockstream runs highly connected and well funded LN hubs, they will get the fee revenue, not miners. This is why some believe Blockstream has a conflict of interest to hamper on-chain growth in a quest to actually become a profitable company vs just a VC and legacy finance slush fund for buying off key developers.
