I tried to do the same research and I'm at your same conclusion. The act of correlate node-id, channel-ids and UTXOs is something neccassary for annaounced channel to avoid antispam. So only channels that prove to be correlated to a real utxo can "sign themself" to the register graph of routing channels.
This seems not the case for anannounched channels, so there seems to be no correlation node-id / utxo for them.
There is still a loss of privacy in giving away node-id (like in the actual implementation bolt11 invoice) cause it risks to make correlations across different payments on lightning network that we will receive, and open to net-analisys.
Bolt12 with blinded paths should solve this problem.
I still could have understood something wrong, so a second confirmation would be appreciated😅
I also found that by bolt11 implementation theres also correlation of channel id (and short channel id) and the funding tx.
And by bolt11, the short channel id is added to the invoice. So, as I understood, even with unannoinced channels in wallet like phoenix, the utxo is leaked by default with bolt11 invoices (not with bolt12 reusable invoice).
Zeus embedded lnd for example has an option to wrap invoices and permit to receive payments with bolt11 invoices that dont leaks channel-ids and node-id to the payer.
Also zeus is adding blinding paths, the same trick used in bolt12 to make bolt11 invoices private.
nostr:nprofile1qqsrf5h4ya83jk8u6t9jgc76h6kalz3plp9vusjpm2ygqgalqhxgp9gpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43qzrthwden5te0dehhxtnvdakqz8thwden5te0dehhxarj94c82c3wwajkcmr0wfjx2u3wdejhgjaa6xr have I understood how things works or I'm missing something here? Its really possible to find the funding tx when exposing the channel-id in unannounced channels?
Pretty accurate. Need to take into account whether the channel gets force closed, whether Taproot is used, whether SCID aliases are used, and what other info the attacker observes passively
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed