Why is Amethyst using 1.4GB of storage? 🤔
When they ban you, you're doing something right.
Oh, God, no! We don't have enough people to do the work Bitcoin needs already.
My guess is they are not, just present themselves as such for money.
Not really, the limit is actively harmful to bitcoin.
IIRC MPPs are quite frequent for a while. But TBH I never looked into it closely.
Yes, I mean decoys. You do have to trust them. The only difference is what number of interactions you need to have sufficient confidence that there is a sufficient number of honest participants.
Even with accumulators you're still trusting. The only difference is that the parameter becomes all users which is really good and efficient but effectively homomorphic with just using everything as decoy or using every single LN node in path.
As long as you believe that for some number of participants it's safe enough it's OK.
I heard Coinomi suggested to newbies because it had a bunch of other shitcoins as well as btc.
LN doesn't require scanning comparable with Monero. It only requires block filters which are comparatively smaller and only for channel states, not for every transaction. That's orders of magnitude difference.
In LN broadcast privacy is only an issue for initiators and only if they don't use Tor, which is trivial to enable these days.
More people increase anonset but make scanning more expensive pushing people towards revealing their view keys to third parties. There are also obscure probabilistic attacks that are only possible because anonset is high. But once FCMP is no longer vaporware they indeed cease to exist.
Not really. If UTXO set grows in addition to new users that's a problem.
UTXO set size is proportional to the number of users and the amount of arbitrary data. A transaction always destroys at least one UTXO but arbitrary data cannot be destroyed.
If you believe that inability to write code makes Bitcoin (or anything else) not permissionless then it already isn't.
OP_RETURN doesn't need to be in UTXO set but the fake outputs trying to bypass the 80B limit do.
Leaving it alone incentivizes WORSE spam - flooding UTXO set!
Consequences for the person doing it.
If you steal a car and get caught you're going to prison on top of other problems.
If you send a transaction with data hidden and get detected/rejected, you've just wasted time constructing such transaction and that's all. No prison, no fines, no destruction of reputation.
It doesn't matter that it's optional. The node in the middle doesn't know if it's turned on or not, so it cannot know if it sees the full amount or not.
Monero also requires trusting that the other 14 keys are not held by the same entity or cooperate to deanon you. This is true for any privacy system and impossible to avoid.
14 is arguably higher than the usual length of payment path in LN, so I'll give you that but it's stilk not infinite and making LN path 14 nodes long is still possible.
You might be in a different social bubble, I've seen many people use Coinomi and recommend it. But that was a long time ago, maybe it has changed.
A significant problem with Monero is that it requires scanning whole chain, which will get expensive as more users come, pushing people to send view keys to scanning services.
Compared to that, you only need block filters to scan bitcoin and then just handle the channel.
The irony of Monero is that the more people use it the more some privacy breaks and other improves.
It's diffie-helman which does involve hashing but only as a layer of protection and the most significant thing doing the unlinking is the diffie-helman computation.
> He's wrong about unencrypted receiver (or meant something else)
I meant what I said: monero does not encrypt the receiver. If it did, monero devs could tell me what encryption standard they use (in lightning, we use the Sphinx encryption standard specified in bolt4) and they could point me to the code where the recipient's key gets encrypted (in lightning, that code is here: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/b068d79dfbd2f583d890fd605953d0d4fb897a27/htlcswitch/hop/iterator.go#L114)
Monero does not encrypt the recipient's public key -- it gets published in plaintext on the blockchain -- so the protocol does not specify any encryption standard for that and there is nothing in the codebase where it gets encrypted.
Alright, that's true. But it's not a good argument against Monero privacy because the link between UTXO and the receiver is still hidden from third parties and the link between receiver and his subsequent receiver is also hidden from the sender. The link between sender's sender and the sender is somewhat obscured, as you said with probability 1/15.
I do agree that LN has better privacy than Monero, but using bad arguments doesn't help anyone.
Yes, we already have transaction fees.
Even if it worked as you say it has significant negative consequences if people bypass it creating UNPRUNABLE data.
The comparison doesn't work because there are significant negative consequences to the person doing the crime if he gets caught while there are practically not significant negative consequences from having arbitrary data caught as such.
He's wrong about unencrypted receiver (or meant something else) but LN nodes only see MINIMUM amount, not total amount because of multi paths. And funnily enough, large nodes provide better privacy if they are honest. So if you use several large hubs and at least one of them is honest it's pretty good. (But there are some issues being worked on.)
Also ~90% Monero users use Coinomi or similar wallets that scan their entire wallets so you have the same problem with the difference that people don't talk as much about it.