Nostr Web Client

> is that validation difficulty in the room with us right now?

No, thanks to the fact that no significant amounts of people use monero. During the stress tests, block sizes went way up. Imagine that for years. I don't think regular node operators on cheap hardware could keep up.

> we should have this conversation when bolt12 is actually widely used

Let's have it now: bolt11 already gives users better receiver privacy than a monero public address.

In monero, the sender always knows the recipient's "real" address (the one on the blockchain) and can provably map it to their stealth address. But in lightning payments, the invoice has to tell you the pubkey of the *node* which received the payment (though you can spoof it), but that pubkey doesn't contain any money. It's like a stealth address in monero, except the sender *cannot* map it to the *real* address that received the money, or at least, not necessarily. There are *some* people who've managed to figure out the receiver's address on the blockchain just from their lightning invoice, but even that information is spoofable. In monero, it isn't. So even in this respect, LN > Monero.

> and channel management isnt only for total nerds

It's already easy to manage channels. Try electrum.

> it is *easier for *more people to get *better privacy on #monero

it is only easier for them to get worse privacy. If they are willing to take the steps to get good privacy, setting up an LN node privately is barely more difficult than setting up a monero node.

Hanshan 11mo ago

Soooo

this is just regular "big blocks are bad" FUD.

Could be a problem, sure

but nobody knows at exactly what point you have to go up a layer to maintain adequate decentralization (whatever that means).

Also you keep harping on this point

>the sender always knows the recipient's "real" address (the one on the blockchain) and can provably map it to their stealth address.

which is completely true.

But I'm really having a problem coming up with an attack where that information is useful in any way.

for example,

The Adversary sends monero to their target.

so they can see on the chain when that output *might have been* spent.

aaaand....?

its not useful in large scale surveillance.

and it's barely useful in specific targeted surveillance scenarios.

>setting up an LN node privately is barely more difficult than setting up a monero node.

i call bullshit.

anyone who can find the cmdline can set up a monero node on old hardware or VPS in an hour copypasta-ing from a guide.

I spent an hour yesterday just trying to figure out why all payments to my Zeus wallet were failing.

but almost certainly we both underestimate the difficulties for noobs starting from close to zero.

¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Node Runner 11mo ago

Is this indoctrination? We know what direction is leading to centralization caused by larger blocks. Bitcoin used to be run on a PI 4. The fact that it can't run on a PI 5 tells us that bitcoin is centralizing. Or look to 3rd world countries. Can they afford the hardware, or do they have the bandwidth?

Super Testnet 11mo ago

> which is completely true. But I'm really having a problem coming up with an attack where that information is useful in any way. ...its not useful in large scale surveillance. and it's barely useful in specific targeted surveillance scenarios.

It's how the guy traced in this chainalysis video was caught and arrested:

https://v.nostr.build/D4Nzp22vRF35IRnz.mp4

If he had used LN instead, the feds could not have told Chainalysis what addresses to watch, and Chainalysis could not have traced the outputs through multiple transactions to find out where they went.

> anyone who can find the cmdline can set up a monero node on old hardware or VPS in an hour copypasta-ing from a guide

Same with lightning. Really, give electrum a try.

Hanshan 11mo ago

you mean where he says "conveniently our tool has ruled out all the decoys. convenient but often not the case" ??

at about 30:15

yeah I always wondered how they did that.

it's not an honest argument to suggest they did it simply by Morphtoken giving them the stealth addresses.

and I do intend to try setting up a LN node on a VPS when I have the time.

Node Runner 11mo ago

It reminds me of how one could figure out how your coins went into silk road before it was captured. Oldies but goldies.

Node Runner 11mo ago

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-042j-mathematics-for-computer-science-fall-2010/recitations/

Team Problem: A Mystery

A certain cabal within the 6.042 course staﬀ is plotting to make the ﬁnal exam ridiculously

hard. (“Problem 1. Prove that the axioms of mathematics are complete and consistent.

Express your answer in Mayan hieroglyphics.”) The only way to stop their evil plan is to

determine exactly who is in the cabal. The course staﬀ consists of nine people:

{Oscar, Stav, Darren, Patrice, David, Nick, Martyna, Marten, Tom}

The cabal is a subset of these nine. A membership roster has been found and appears below,

but it is deviously encrypted in logic notation. The predicate incabal indicates who is in the

cabal; that is, incabal(x) is true if and only if x is a member. Translate each statement below

into English and deduce who is in the cabal.

incabal means in group

∃ Exists

!= Not Equal

∧ And

∨ Or

→ implies, if ..., then ..., IMPLIES

∀ for all

¬ Not

(i) ∃x ∃y ∃z (x != y ∧ x != z ∧ y != z ∧ incabal(x) ∧ incabal(y) ∧ incabal(z))

- 3 unique members exist (x, y, and z)

(ii) ¬ (incabal(Stav) ∧ incabal(David))

- Not Stav and David are in the group

- An equal meaning to this is either Stav OR David are in the group

(iii) (incabal(Martyna) ∨ incabal(Patrice)) → ∀x incabal(x)

- if Martyna OR Patrice are in the group then for all x are in the group.

- This is a lie because only 3 people can be in the group and for all x implies all 9

(iv) incabal(Stav) → incabal(David)

- if Stav is in, then David is in

- It just said above they both can't be in the group so Stav can't be in group

(v) incabal(Darren) → incabal(Martyna)

- if Darren is in then Martyna is in

- this leads to a dead end because of (iii)

(vi) (incabal(Oscar) ∨ incabal(Nick)) → ¬incabal(Tom)

- if Oscar or Nick then Tom is not in.

- So it could be Oscar and/or Nick

(vii) (incabal(Oscar) ∨ incabal(David)) → ¬incabal(Marten)

- if Oscar or David then not Marten

Therefore:

The only remaining people that could be in the group is:

Oscar, David, Nick