Lightning: encrypts the sender via ChaCha20
Outcome: any LN wallet could have made that tx
Full Chain Membership Proofs on XMR: obscures the sender with a zero knowledge proof
Outcome: any XMR wallet could have made that tx
One big difference: lightning's method works right now
Now do receiver privacy of a typical Lightning transaction 🧐
Ok
In a typical Lightning transaction, receiver privacy is better than monero in this respect:
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.
Also, it is wonderful to hide your lightning node from the sender, and is similar to not showing your monero stealth address to the sender. But in monero, there's no tools for that. In lightning, blinded paths are becoming standard. So LN is way better.
What Lightning wallets have blinded paths by default?
They're not popular yet. Zeus even warns you before you turn it on.
Defaults matter.
Lightning invoices have better privacy than monero even when blinded paths are turned off
Because the recipient's address is still encrypted so that the sender can't see it
With blinded paths, privacy is superior, but not without it, since you're exposing your node's pubkey (assuming you're using your own) and thus your entire balance.
the pubkey exposed in a bolt11 lightning invoice never receives any money (it is only used for communication, specifically for signing your invoice and some messages on the p2p communication network) and does not expose your balance
also, anyone who scans your lightning invoice and sends money to you does not learn what address received the money (or rather, they don't learn what address *would* receive the money if the transaction went to chain). They only learn your node's *communication* pubkey, they don't learn where the money actually went per the blockchain's consensus rules.
by contrast, in monero, anyone who scans your monero public address and sends money to you learns exactly what address received the money and they can provably map that "stealth" address to your public address. This is part of how many monero users get caught, e.g. it is how chainalysis learned what transactions to investigate in the following video where they show how they caught a Columbian drug lord:
Lightning receiver privacy is widely known to be notoriously bad without blinded paths
No one is arguing that amounts aren't hidden. We're talking receiver privacy which is the pubkey being exposed.
If that was true, blinded paths wouldn't be needed, and good practice wouldn't be to coinjoin after closing a channel.
> Lightning receiver privacy is widely known to be notoriously bad without blinded paths
People who say that are notoriously wrong
> No one is arguing that amounts aren't hidden. We're talking receiver privacy which is the pubkey being exposed.
The receiver pubkey doesn't receive any money. The pubkey that *does* receive money is *not* exposed to the sender. Well, not in lightning. In monero, it is.
> If that was true, blinded paths wouldn't be needed
They aren't
> and good practice wouldn't be to coinjoin after closing a channel
That is good practice because it's an on-chain transaction, and good privacy on-chain involves coinjoining. It has nothing to do with supposedly exposing yourself via your invoice, which is not a thing. You invented it. Or heard it from someone misinformed.
>"They aren't"
Then why are you always talking about blinded paths as a privacy improvement?
>"That is good practice because it's an on-chain transaction, and good privacy on-chain involves coinjoining. It has nothing to do with supposedly exposing yourself via your invoice, which is not a thing. You invented it. Or heard it from someone misinformed."
You're putting words in my mouth. Show me where I said "exposing yourself via your invoice". As for the rest 👇
"On-Chain Footprint: Opening and closing LN channels necessitate on-chain transactions that are publicly visible and analysable. This creates a "digital fingerprint" that may be used to link on-chain and LN activity....
Public Channel Announcements: Most LN nodes publicly announce their channels to facilitate routing, including the channel's funding transaction. This can link a user's LN node with their on-chain activity....
Invoice Data & Receiver Privacy: LN invoices contain the receiver's public key, and invoices using unannounced channels also include routing hints exposing channel details. This significantly compromises receiver privacy."
"In the Channel Coinjoins chapter we look into the on-chain connection to Lightning, where channel opens and channel closes can harm the privacy of a Lightning node."
"Funding and channel close transactions can be used to link UTXOs to lighting nodes. Not even private channels are protected from this leakage, as sometimes they can publish information on-chain that reveals that the transaction was related to lightning network activity."
https://massmux.org/p/lightning-network-privacy-pros-and
https://lightningprivacy.com/en/introduction
https://www.voltage.cloud/blog/lightning-network-privacy-explainer
> why are you always talking about blinded paths as a privacy improvement?
They help prevent the sender from knowing what routing nodes you're connected to
> You're putting words in my mouth. Show me where I said "exposing yourself via your invoice".
Sorry, I retract that part
yeah but what % of txs are actually using them?
and can I use them even if the routing doesn't necessarily support them
or only with a subset of routing nodes?
even if you're NOT using them, you still get better privacy than monero offers
because *even without them,* the recipient's address is still encrypted so that the sender can't see it
Plus the silent payments... btc onchain
Why you still trying to piss on Monero? Are you scared of anything? 👀
Ligthning usages is a joke, even on El Salvador almost nobody uses it 😅
If Ligthning have more privacy why Dark Net Markets doesn't use it instead of Monero and they say Ligthning is a worst solution in privacy?
Real world use cases show you that you are wrong and people are waking up to the bullshit that lightning is..
The only place that ligthning is used is on nostr, nothing else, and you and your community are using the nostr zaps to say that ligthning is being used.
When we go see the real world stores and real world transactions that accept crypto Monero is the king, and that is a reason for it. Even BTC L1 is more used than LN in real world cases..
“Nobody use bitcoin” procedes to promote a coin that had less than 1000 tx last hour.
If Monero is the king then we gotta accept nobody use crypto.
To be fair, what percent of Bitcoin transactions are actual p2p Bitcoin transactions? Not CEXes moving around other peoples Bitcoin or payments from custodians on behalf of/to users.
I would wager not a lot. Especially considering the mempool was empty a few weeks ago while Bitcoin was hitting ATHs.
The CEX’s reduce on chain usage, not the opposite so bitcoin transactions/usage should be even more than those in the mempool. An yes, we should also take in consideration that there were two weeks in a row where time per block decreased to 9 min. Now is back to +10 min and is full again.
>"The CEX’s reduce on chain usage"
ATHs + no/low on-chain usage means vast majority of activity is taking place on custodians/CEXes. This just means a majority are transacting with custodians which isn't the flex you think it is.
>"two weeks in a row where time per block decreased to 9 min. Now is back to +10 min and is full again. "
I'm talking about transaction count.
The “flex” is that even though having L2 + CEX taking majority of coin movement (supposedly true) it still beating your beloved coin in transactions per day. You would need +3 hours of transactions to fill 1 bitcoin block.
Plus: if you accelerate the blocks confirmation it will allow more transactions then it’s more viable to have a clearer mempool now do it two weeks in a row.
XMR have 3 empty per every 100 blocks. If you acelerate the block velocity by 6% it would increase that count too.
LN is terrible for moving large volume. The larger the transaction the higher likelihood it will fail. And if you think Monero hourly transactions are small wait until you see Liquid. So no, nice try, L2 is not any significant part of those transactions lmao. It's mostly CEXes/custodians.
Also, check the market caps and userbase of both. Monero is a tiny 0.2% the size of Bitcoin but regulary hovers around 5%-10% tx count of Bitcoin. Punching way above it's weight.
0.0001 (x10) still more than 0 (XMR). Those are 2 L2 to count. Plus CEX, yes is not ideal but still transactions (the topic we are currently discussing!!) that you are not taking on account while comparing to Moreno which has only ONE way (an some of Kraken to be fair)
Monero txs are lowering this year compared to last year coinciding with its price increase. It’s basic economics: if holder expects price increases, the usage decrease. I don’t think it will pair bitcoin % usage because it has less participants but probably would be affected too by that rule.
Those are the 2 largest L2s Bitcoin has right now. What else is there?
CEX transactions don't count if the whole point is p2p electronic cash. Might as well use fiat at that point if your transactions are permissioned and held by custodians.
Yes, Monero only has one and it still has more value than LN, and more transactions than Liquid, by several orders of magnitude.
>"Monero txs are lowering this year compared to last year"
No, it's not lol. It's pretty much the same. The big spike you see early last year is from the DDOS attack.
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/monero-transactions.html#1y
If we only count P2P your coin still lower. Much lower. If bitcoin have not on chain usage (agree), divide that by 10 and cry with your 2 peers.
"check the market caps and userbase of both. Monero is a tiny 0.2% the size of Bitcoin but regulary hovers around 5%-10% tx count of Bitcoin. Punching way above it's weight."
