StopAndDecrypt wrote a very informative guide on how to install, and run a Bitcoin node, and a Lightning node over the Tor Network, https://stopanddecrypt.medium.com/running-bitcoin-lightning-nodes-over-the-tor-network-2021-edition-489180297d5
That could of help to you, BlackHatCoiner, and it might be good to include in the OP.
Topic: The Lightning Network FAQ - page 37. (Read 33677 times)
In the OP it says that LND supports neutrino, but I have no idea what is it
Neutrino is a Bitcoin light-client. Its GitHub page states that it still should not be used on the mainnet.
Is there any tutorial that explains how I'll setup my LN node without running a Bitcoin node?
You need a Bitcoin node. Your Lightning Network node needs to constantly monitor the mempool and the blockchain. Otherwise, it would not be able to tell when it's safe to use a specific channel or if any of your peers is trying to cheat. It also needs to know what transaction fees look like at the moment so that a commitment transaction could be updated with a reasonable fee.
You should be able to use a pruned node with c-lightning without any extra setup. Keep in mind the following.
You can use a pruned node if you choose either c-lighting or LND. However, whichever you choose, you need to be careful about the discrepancy in the reported blockheight by your Bitcoin and Lightning nodes. If your Lightning node crashes for some reason and your Bitcoin node prunes a block which has not been processed yet by the other node then your Lightning node will get stuck. See the following links for more information (#1, #2).
I have a VPS left and I'd like to run a LN node to help the network and myself with this brilliant technology. I've read that eclair requires a full node and c-lightning a pruned. In the OP it says that LND supports neutrino, but I have no idea what is it. I opened the github page and read that it helps you create JavaScript applications with zero initial configuration.
Is there any tutorial that explains how I'll setup my LN node without running a Bitcoin node?
Is there any tutorial that explains how I'll setup my LN node without running a Bitcoin node?
do you know, is he only behind tor?
Yes. If you are not sure then you can always take a look at 1ml.comhttps://1ml.com/node/0273da0a525390c36857841e208f1d289275c76ebfa7ecfde697c6cbf4f235b4f5
https://1ml.com/node/03fef777d58a529df02a3fb267690e0c9033767b555cc1c63844bb2d3498789f91
As you can see in the table on the left side, our nodes have only an onion address listed under "IP Addresses".
yes, of course, silly me didn't think before posting
i was just thinking we could also do triangles (or some more obscene geometric formations) in the future - or are they absolete with dual-funded channels?
Unless more people join us, I don't think there is any point in this. You can simply route a payment through me; it's only one additional hop.you are right for the moment we are not many and i also don't see the value in it right now. but in the future (when we are many) we don't want you to become the one single point of failure
(i am kidding - but there is some truth in there i think)Quote
i was just thinking we could also do triangles (or some more obscene geometric formations) in the future - or are they absolete with dual-funded channels?
Technically, you can include a lot of inputs and outputs in a single transaction. As long as transaction size will be below 100 kB, it should be possible to open and close many channels with many participants in a single transaction. The main problem is in lightning clients understanding what is going on, it may be impossible to create such transaction with some standard lightning client, but may be possible to create and sign it with for example Bitcoin Core and then get it accepted by some lightning node. It is definitely possible in case of opening a channel (you can open many channels by using a single opening transaction), closing it is harder, because you have to put that transaction inside the lightning client somehow and convince other lightning nodes to do the same.yes rath also mentioned opening multiple channels in one transaction, that is awesome and i have to look into it at some point. but the fees are so low at the moment (that is why now is a good time to start setting up your lighting node), i don't need it
and i try to stay with what the clients support and don't want to get into something else for the moment, i was talking about swaps you can for example see on lightningnetwork.plus - we could even use that site (possible to use with fake email addresse, even mentioned on the site somewhere)
just an idea if we are more people - rath is right, at the moment this is not necessary and doesn't really fullfill any purpose, but i am thinking about the future
Quote
i was just thinking we could also do triangles (or some more obscene geometric formations) in the future - or are they absolete with dual-funded channels?
Technically, you can include a lot of inputs and outputs in a single transaction. As long as transaction size will be below 100 kB, it should be possible to open and close many channels with many participants in a single transaction. The main problem is in lightning clients understanding what is going on, it may be impossible to create such transaction with some standard lightning client, but may be possible to create and sign it with for example Bitcoin Core and then get it accepted by some lightning node. It is definitely possible in case of opening a channel (you can open many channels by using a single opening transaction), closing it is harder, because you have to put that transaction inside the lightning client somehow and convince other lightning nodes to do the same. do you know, is he only behind tor?
Yes. If you are not sure then you can always take a look at 1ml.com
https://1ml.com/node/0273da0a525390c36857841e208f1d289275c76ebfa7ecfde697c6cbf4f235b4f5
https://1ml.com/node/03fef777d58a529df02a3fb267690e0c9033767b555cc1c63844bb2d3498789f91
As you can see in the table on the left side, our nodes have only an onion address listed under "IP Addresses".
i was just thinking we could also do triangles (or some more obscene geometric formations) in the future - or are they absolete with dual-funded channels?
Unless more people join us, I don't think there is any point in this. You can simply route a payment through me; it's only one additional hop.
nice one - do you run by any chance behind tor and could try to connect to my node?
Yesterday, I asked darkv0rt3x to try connecting to your node and it worked.Code:
lightning-cli connect 025b5150c66f3ea41367829f6e4639c772fe4c7939b71933802233493e6e972a8e
awesome thank you guys - do you know, is he only behind tor?
Another dual-funded channel here! 
As you can all see, it's not that difficult. Who will be the third bitcointalk member to open a dual-funded channel with me? 
If any of you were thinking about setting up a Lightning node, now might be the right time. Transaction fees have been extremely low for the past few days.
i was just thinking we could also do triangles (or some more obscene geometric formations) in the future - or are they absolete with dual-funded channels?
nice one - do you run by any chance behind tor and could try to connect to my node?
Code:
lightning-cli connect 025b5150c66f3ea41367829f6e4639c772fe4c7939b71933802233493e6e972a8e
Yesterday, I asked darkv0rt3x to try connecting to your node and it worked.
Another dual-funded channel here!
As you can all see, it's not that difficult. Who will be the third bitcointalk member to open a dual-funded channel with me?
If any of you were thinking about setting up a Lightning node, now might be the right time. Transaction fees have been extremely low for the past few days.
Yeah, I was also talking about that with _Rath. I think I have used fundchannel in the past without using connect before!
Another dual-funded channel here!
Another dual-funded channel here!
nice one - do you run by any chance behind tor and could try to connect to my node?
Code:
lightning-cli connect 025b5150c66f3ea41367829f6e4639c772fe4c7939b71933802233493e6e972a8e
that would be really helpful
ps: another reason for our own lightning network subforum - i need a support thread
3. entering two commands (now that i think about it, maybe the first command wouldn't be necessary if my node would be "older"/ better connected)
Just for clarify, the first command was lightning-cli connect and the other one lightning-cli fundchannel. You cannot fund a channel unless you manually connect to the person you want to open a channel with.i read about "auto-connection in the manpage. i guess you could get away with only the lightning-cli fundchannel command:
Quote from: manpage lightning-fundchannel(7)
DESCRIPTION
The fundchannel RPC command opens a payment channel with a peer by
committing a funding transaction to the blockchain as defined in BOLT
#2. If not already connected, fundchannel will automatically attempt
to connect if C-lightning knows a way to contact the node (either from
normal gossip, or from a previous connect call). This auto-connection
can fail if C-lightning does not know how to contact the target node;
see lightning-connect(7). Once the transaction is confirmed, normal
channel operations may begin. Readiness is indicated by listpeers
reporting a state of CHANNELD_NORMAL for the channel.
The fundchannel RPC command opens a payment channel with a peer by
committing a funding transaction to the blockchain as defined in BOLT
#2. If not already connected, fundchannel will automatically attempt
to connect if C-lightning knows a way to contact the node (either from
normal gossip, or from a previous connect call). This auto-connection
can fail if C-lightning does not know how to contact the target node;
see lightning-connect(7). Once the transaction is confirmed, normal
channel operations may begin. Readiness is indicated by listpeers
reporting a state of CHANNELD_NORMAL for the channel.
Yeah, I was also talking about that with _Rath. I think I have used fundchannel in the past without using connect before!
Another dual-funded channel here!
3. entering two commands (now that i think about it, maybe the first command wouldn't be necessary if my node would be "older"/ better connected)
Just for clarify, the first command was lightning-cli connect and the other one lightning-cli fundchannel. You cannot fund a channel unless you manually connect to the person you want to open a channel with.i read about "auto-connection in the manpage. i guess you could get away with only the lightning-cli fundchannel command:
Quote from: manpage lightning-fundchannel(7)
DESCRIPTION
The fundchannel RPC command opens a payment channel with a peer by
committing a funding transaction to the blockchain as defined in BOLT
#2. If not already connected, fundchannel will automatically attempt
to connect if C-lightning knows a way to contact the node (either from
normal gossip, or from a previous connect call). This auto-connection
can fail if C-lightning does not know how to contact the target node;
see lightning-connect(7). Once the transaction is confirmed, normal
channel operations may begin. Readiness is indicated by listpeers
reporting a state of CHANNELD_NORMAL for the channel.
The fundchannel RPC command opens a payment channel with a peer by
committing a funding transaction to the blockchain as defined in BOLT
#2. If not already connected, fundchannel will automatically attempt
to connect if C-lightning knows a way to contact the node (either from
normal gossip, or from a previous connect call). This auto-connection
can fail if C-lightning does not know how to contact the target node;
see lightning-connect(7). Once the transaction is confirmed, normal
channel operations may begin. Readiness is indicated by listpeers
reporting a state of CHANNELD_NORMAL for the channel.
3. entering two commands (now that i think about it, maybe the first command wouldn't be necessary if my node would be "older"/ better connected)
Just for clarify, the first command was lightning-cli connect and the other one lightning-cli fundchannel. You cannot fund a channel unless you manually connect to the person you want to open a channel with.
By the way, if both peers support dual-funding, they can also use RBF to bump the fee of the opening transaction.
but onrampsincomingliquiditycustodialwalletchannelbalancinghubslightningbankcentral ization 
Thanks, you made my day!
I am pleased to announce that I and ndalliard are (probably) the first bitcointalk members to open a dual-funded channel
but onrampsincomingliquiditycustodialwalletchannelbalancinghubslightningbankcentral ization
I am pleased to announce that I and ndalliard are (probably) the first bitcointalk members to open a dual-funded channel
no, waaait a second. That means you created a balanced channel as the transaction to open it, and that this kind of channel could be the default for a node manager searching for channel partners...
I am pleased to announce that I and ndalliard are (probably) the first bitcointalk members to open a dual-funded channel
it was basically:1. adding a string to the config
2. restarting the node
3. entering two commands (now that i think about it, maybe the first command wouldn't be necessary if my node would be "older"/ better connected)
so easy - everyone can do it? probably not, but the experience was pleasant. now comes the harder part on my end. i want to understand what i did there. i did it this time without understand because we wanted to use the nearly empty mempool to save some precious sats
I am pleased to announce that I and ndalliard are (probably) the first bitcointalk members to open a dual-funded channel
We both compiled the latest master branch of c-lightning and added "experimental-dual-fund" to our config files. ndalliard was the founder, so I had to configure the funder policy plugin which is not documented well, yet. My funder policy currently looks as follows.
In short, my node contributes 750k satoshis to every incoming channel (as long as I have enough funds in the wallet and the founder supports dual-funding) if that channel is bigger than 500k satoshis. I will keep my contribution at zero for most of the time. If someone running c-lightning wants to open a channel with me, let me know in advance so that I can change it back and help you with setting-up dual-funding. It might become easier in the upcoming v0.10.1 update.
We both compiled the latest master branch of c-lightning and added "experimental-dual-fund" to our config files. ndalliard was the founder, so I had to configure the funder policy plugin which is not documented well, yet. My funder policy currently looks as follows.
Code:
lightning-cli funderupdate
{
"summary": "fixed (750000sat)",
"policy": "fixed",
"policy_mod": 750000,
"min_their_funding": "500000000msat",
"max_their_funding": "4294967295000msat",
"per_channel_min": "500000000msat",
"per_channel_max": "4294967295000msat",
"reserve_tank": "0msat",
"fuzz_percent": 0,
"fund_probability": 100
}
{
"summary": "fixed (750000sat)",
"policy": "fixed",
"policy_mod": 750000,
"min_their_funding": "500000000msat",
"max_their_funding": "4294967295000msat",
"per_channel_min": "500000000msat",
"per_channel_max": "4294967295000msat",
"reserve_tank": "0msat",
"fuzz_percent": 0,
"fund_probability": 100
}
In short, my node contributes 750k satoshis to every incoming channel (as long as I have enough funds in the wallet and the founder supports dual-funding) if that channel is bigger than 500k satoshis. I will keep my contribution at zero for most of the time. If someone running c-lightning wants to open a channel with me, let me know in advance so that I can change it back and help you with setting-up dual-funding. It might become easier in the upcoming v0.10.1 update.
Is Lightning Network centralized? Is it more centralized than Bitcoin? Does it make Bitcoin more centralized?
This topic has been brought up many times. The Lightning Network is a second layer scaling solution which has no impact on the Bitcoin network. It works independently and no one is forced to use it.
the wording here is a little bit off imo. i guess you are not talking about the lightning technology used on another network than bitcoin.This topic has been brought up many times. The Lightning Network is a second layer scaling solution which has no impact on the Bitcoin network. It works independently and no one is forced to use it.
Don't forget there are actual usage such as atomic swap (cryptocurrency exchange).
When you posted “impact”, I thought you believed that Lightning would truly have a strong influence on the consensus layer.
Although it's not strong, few Bitcoin soft fork (such as SegWit which fix transaction malleability and CSV which used on LN's HTLC) benefit LN development.
that means the lightning network it is clearly dependent on the bitcoin network and also i would say, that both networks have an impact on each other. i agree with the last part, that no one is force to use neither networks (some say people in el salvador are now force to use it, but that is another topic)
Lightning is an “off-chain” layer and doesn’t impact the Bitcoin blockchain/the base layer.just because it is called "off-chain" doesn't mean it doesn't impact bitcoin the base layer, if you think about it, you have to do at least two transactions for every channel (okay maybe one if you count channels you will "never" close), but my point is: it impacts the base layer, cause lightning needs a base layer and using it means that there is an impact / influence, whatever you want to call it - or are we takling about two different things here?
In that regard, then yes, it does have an “impact”, but I believe “impact” might be too powerful of a term to use. When you posted “impact”, I thought you believed that Lightning would truly have a strong influence on the consensus layer.
the wording here is a little bit off imo. i guess you are not talking about the lightning technology used on another network than bitcoin. that means the lightning network it is clearly dependent on the bitcoin network and also i would say, that both networks have an impact on each other. i agree with the last part, that no one is force to use neither networks (some say people in el salvador are now force to use it, but that is another topic)
I get your point. I should mention that there is a possible risk of flooding the network if a large number of channels is closed at once. Uncooperative channel close results in 2 on-chain transactions, so that's how someone could do even more damage.the wording here is a little bit off imo. i guess you are not talking about the lightning technology used on another network than bitcoin. that means the lightning network it is clearly dependent on the bitcoin network and also i would say, that both networks have an impact on each other. i agree with the last part, that no one is force to use neither networks (some say people in el salvador are now force to use it, but that is another topic)
I get your point. I should mention that there is a possible risk of flooding the network if a large number of channels is closed at once. Uncooperative channel close results in 2 on-chain transactions, so that's how someone could do even more damage.
A few moments ago, I answered ndalliard's question about timelocks in the commitment transactions. I ended up explaining in detail how uncooperative channel close is performed. Some of you might find it interesting.
is the period of that timelock every time a new commitment is broadcastet updated? so it is a moving timeframe? and that timeframe will be set in stone with the opening transaction on the base layer, is that correct?
I might have phrased that slightly wrong, so let me explain it in more detail. If you are closing a channel uncooperatively, there are actually two on-chain transactions involved instead of just one.
First of all, the timelock is decided before the channel is established. By default, most nodes force the other peer to wait 144 blocks (~1 day). The maximum acceptable value by default is 2016 blocks (~2 weeks). I configured my node to create channels with their_to_self_delay = 432 blocks (~3 days), so if someone decides to close the channel opened to my node uncooperatively, they will have to wait 432 blocks (after the commitment transaction has been included in a block) before they can spend the output belonging to them. Those timelocks are relative which means that you do not have to sign a new commitment transaction whenever a new block is mined. New commitment transactions are signed periodically because their fees need to match the current state of the mempool. There is no point in paying 60 sat/vbyte when 1 sat/vbyte transactions are getting confirmed in just a few minutes. It also applies the other way around.
The first transaction is the commitment transaction. Let's say there's node A(lice) and node B(ob), and node A broadcasts the commitment transaction. That commitment transaction includes two outputs:
- output #0: 3 BTC (spendable by node B's private key) - reflecting node B balance
- output #1: 6 BTC (RSMC) - reflecting node A balance
There is one more important detail before we go any further. Whenever a new commitment transaction is signed, both parties exchange revocation keys for the previous commitment transaction so that they can both be sure that the other party is very unlikely to broadcast an old state of the channel.
RSMC is short for Revocable Sequence Maturing Contract. Such an output contains a relative timelock. This means that you can't spend this output until a certain amount of blocks have been mined since the transaction which includes that output was mined.
Let's say node B didn't change the default value of 144 blocks and the commitment transaction has been confirmed. There are two possible scenarios.
1) Node A attempts to cheat and broadcast an old commitment transaction. Node B has 144 blocks to spend the RSMC output using his and node A's revocation key which he got while they were working on a new commitment transaction.
2) Node A broadcasts the latest commitment transaction. In such a case, node B never got node A's revocation key for that commitment transaction, so he cannot spend that RSMC. Node A can broadcast another transaction spending that output after 144 blocks have been mined.
I know it sounds complicated. I am working on a thread which will explain it in a more understandable way.
that means the lightning network it is clearly dependent on the bitcoin network and also i would say, that both networks have an impact on each other. i agree with the last part, that no one is force to use neither networks (some say people in el salvador are now force to use it, but that is another topic)
Lightning is an “off-chain” layer and doesn’t impact the Bitcoin blockchain/the base layer.Jump to: