Topic: Lightning Network Observer - page 35. (Read 14075 times)

Someone built a KYC free exchange on the Lighting network:

Everyone says we need easy and cheap markets for non-KYC BTC... So I have done this.


It looks like a BISQ like exchange over LN, with added privacy then.

Total transactions increase as well as total value transacted in Lightning Network. It's good together with growth of channels, network capacity, channel capacity in Lightning network charts and with the higher demand on Bitcoin, Lightning Network will be sure one of best solutions for Bitcoin users now.

They can use other alternatives like Segwit address, Taproot but Lightning Network saves their transaction cost a lot.

Learn about Lightning Network with Mastering the Lightning Network: A Second Layer Blockchain Protocol for Instant Bitcoin Payments 1st Edition

Paolo Ardoino seems quite happy with LN usage at Bitfinex.



I wouldn’t have expected such a growth, 0.1 BTC on average looks like a lot.
Nice to see.

Sounds good - let's see who else would be interested! Dual-funded or even circular channels are pretty useful, I think.

i already have an open channel with Rath_
i could contribute 0.005 - but can also provide contributions from 0.01 if necessary

These little tiny Raspberry Pi PC enclosures are so cute!
Sure, what kind of size are we looking at? Would recommend a circular (or triangle) setup with multiple users like @Rath_, BlackHatCoiner and anyone else who wants to join!

i support the lightning network since a few days with my own node now too and if there are interested guys i would open a channel with some of you


https://twitter.com/cryptocygan/status/1492930549861826563

When I listen to Jack Mallers I always feel that thrill of being alive in the exact moment when a new financial sistem it is being bootstrapped and being put in place for the whole human kind:





90 minutes worth listening to.

As I don't want to help you derail another topic, I replied in the Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain thread. If you are interested in continuing the discussion, please reply there.

1. people can use invoice uri that contain ip or tor addresses.
your reliance on your wallet having a dns bootstrap is a privacy concern.. for YOU
the 'convenience' of not needing ip/tor addresses in an invoice. is then the privacy loss by preferring a network map


2. you think the only messages involved in a LN are
node announce
channel_update
update_add_htlc
update_fulfill_htlc,
update_fail_htlc,
update_fail_malformed_htlc
commitment_signed
plus a few others.
YOU think there are only under a dozen message types and YOU think all payment messages involve "update_add_htlc"

in other topics i showed you there are like 500 different message types(spec compliant) and upto 65,000 custom, and each of those types can be used for a multitude of things
even simple messages like ping and pong can add payloads of different information, well outside of your "update_add_htlc" mantra where you think everything is done inside

3. maybe the many ways many wallets do it, is not spec compliant to YOUR wallet. but your wallet after all is not interested in privacy, hense why you think your wallet is limited to only a dozen message types.

4. when i go private it appears to you as "trampolining" and your map becomes broke because you cant see C. thus you if you were Z could not arrange a payment to A via your DNS bootstrap.

but other people with other wallets could. because they dont just create a route based on some bootstrap map, but by actually talking to peers

EG W does not tell X about C because WC is private. so X cant tell y and Y cannot tell Z .
so you as Z will just see Z-Y-X-W but not -C..
yet actually talking outside of the 'channel_announce' and 'channel_update' you can actually walk a path using other methods.


5. funny part is. if you really wanted to do some positive real feature promoting of LN. you could realise that the lack of a consensus means that LN does not need default, forced, public compliance. but hey, you prefer the forced default public compliance that has a 70% fail rate.. strange

Oh, wow. Slow down for a moment. I have never said that.


As for the "central DNS", you are ignoring the fact that nodes use DNS bootstrapping (just like Bitcoin nodes) to discover peers. Lightning nodes talk not only to their channel partners but also to other participants of the network. You fail to acknowledge that even though you can easily check it on your own by either setting up your own node or running a non-custodial wallet like Electrum.


Yes, I could still see WX, XY and YZ channels as you assume that they are public.


There is no other way to test if the payment will go through other than to actually send it. You fail to prove which "private message" in our opinion is actually supposed to do that. You will very likely come up with another non spec-complaint message.

if you speak to rath_ he will tell you his LN wallet does not have privacy, his wallet announces his channel balance changes to a central DNS/explorer/whole network so that everyone can see whats available to make routes.

where analysis can then watch the movements as the updates happen

LN originally worked differently using private messages. (still does if you avoid rath_'s prefered wallet)
here is rath highlighting how he views his wallets function of everything is public



note.
other LN wallets(not like rath_'s) do not have channels set to public by default, do not send announcements to the whole network. and it only sends it to the 'tree' of peered nodes. if they choose to.

notice the use of words "forces users" . "public by default" .. nasty stuff

the way LN was "promised2 was privacy where for instance


but in rath_'s view his wallet broadcasts everything meaning if he had the same set up.

the whole network would see

A-B-C-D-E
       \
       W-X-Y-Z

oh and rath_ thinks even if i set my C to be private, he can still see
A-B-C-D-E
       \
       W-X-Y-Z

all because HIS wallet defaults and forces his channels to be public so he does not understand that privacy was and is possible.

the other thing is  the 'convenience' of 'all public' (default, forced) means he does not need to send private messages to test routes. and instead can build routes without testing them. the flaw of this convenience of saving a few hundred bytes of data. is ofcourse lack of privacy, and also the reason he had a 70% fail rate for payments because he wasnt testing routes before trying to push payments

Works like a charm, too...

Hmm.  I wonder what's gonna happen now?

Wait, I know!  I am gonna figure out where the Cash App nodes are and make some channels...  Bigguns.  With big ass chewy fees so they can pay me back a little for the corn I've bought from them...

Anyone knows what the CASH APP nodes are?  



Thinking this through... I could see this channel getting drained of 0.16BTC really fast.  So all I gotta figure out is how much do the fees need to be justify having to reload them over and over...  Or even drop them and create new ones.  Hmm.  HMM!

Cash App integrated Lightning Network on their platform:



Apparently Block’s mobile app has just been updated and now users are anabled to use LN to perform BTC payments more quickly and cheaper payments.

Jack Dorsey has been a long time fan of LN, and Block  announced the intention to integrate LN months ago: we are finally seeing some results in production!

WasabiWallet is giving a grant for research teams to design a privacy-focused Lightning Network wallet, https://blog.wasabiwallet.io/1-btc-ln-privacy-grant/

It’s a very good counter-defense against Chainalysis’ attempts of breaking privacy, and using Lightning for surveillance. The grant isn’t very big, but it’s a good way to start in my opinion.

https://twitter.com/chainalysis/status/1469317238893289475

It’s not “support” for the Lightning Network. It’s actually surveillance, pretending to help Lightning “stay compliant with regulations”. Although, Lightning users can thank Chainalysis for the liquidity.

Can Chainalysis trace every transaction in Lightning? How can users add more privacy?

https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/lightning-network-support/

Coindesk released  a new podcast about Lightning network: Exploring Bitcoin’s Lightning Network


A good, non technical listening if you have a spare hour.
 

Call it a mixing alternative, a search for an alternative utility for the Lightning Network, or simply just another new way to increase Bitcoin’s anon-set and non-KYC UTXOs. It helps LN, and it incentivizes the users of LN.

Agree with Rath.  You could do this with any non custodial wallet. 

But for what your friend wants?  I will suggest this.

Use two wallets:

1.  Send On-Chain bitcoin to Wallet of Satoshi
2.  Send a lightning transaction to Muun wallet.  (You may need to send more than one to squeeze out as many sats as possible, many wallets will only allow you to send a percentage of your total to save sats for the fee)
3.  "Withdraw" with an On Chain transaction.

Now... some details. 

-You can change the two above wallets to any other two that would work.  I just know that both of those will allow on and off chain transactions from your balance.
-WoS is custodial.  This implies counter party risk.  But it also ensures your sats come from "somewhere else".
-CoinOS.io is another good choice and lets you float between BTC, L-BTC,and lightning with one single balance. This would allow sending to az series of LBTC wallets and back to CoinOS if you  like in the middle of your trips.  Liquid will allow you to use Monero like Confidential Transactions, and you could use morethan one CoinOS account and TOR if you REALLY want to push it...

This whole exercise has made me think about the nature of layer 2 systems, and how they will actually end up doing some fairly interesting UTXO obfuscation.  Also, i had never considered that funds that join and leave a "layer 2" *could* also end up "dirty" without the user knowing.  Eventually this will probably make it to court or some other official.  Lightning's privacy is going to be an interesting twist (as will Liquids)