pull down to refresh

The privacy discussion of LN versus Monero as a Bitcoin layer 2.
341 sats \ 3 comments \ @expatriotic 6 Feb privacy
I've observed some issues with the argumentation that LN advocates make when discussing the topic of LN versus monero that unfortunately will result in it never being resolved.
For LN advocates, take note.
  1. LN advocates saying "find my transaction". This is problematic because this is something a nation state or WoS COULD do... But not me. So stop asking. We get that LN is a network. Also what about receiver privacy? Which is distinct from senders. Is everyone (and every LN flavor) using trampoline, MPP, blinded routes, taproot etc.? See argument number 3.
  2. LN advocates talking about Bitcoin being a better store of value than monero. Sure. Okay. But I'm not convinced this is compelling. First of all, most people on nostr actually use bitcoin as a SoV already, so it's a moot point. Plus, the LN vs monero argument is about payments anyway. Eg the BEST way to make LN is custodially anyway, and most people say, "don't worry, I only have a small amount with custodians, for use as a proxy for receiving or to spend more easily." Okay, well many people use monero similarly, only holding enough for some payments for the next month or so. But at least with monero one has the benefit of not relying on a custodian.
  3. It's actually impossible to argue with someone about LN because of how many ways it can be run. Fully custodially or super hardcore mode. And each one has problems. But this makes it effectively impossible to argue against because the goal posts can just keep shifting. I call this the infinite edge case problem.
  4. LN advocates need to think about why DNMs have no desire to receive LN payments. If LN gets good enough from a UX and DEFAULT privacy perspective, it might see more adoption by privacy advocates. As if a DNM wants to manage the help tickets that would flood in from the barrage of people complaining about failed payments.
  5. Anecdotally, I remember during the high fee environment I got really into the idea of only using LN. So I set up Blixt and got tons of inbound liquidity (which cost me over 200,000 sats), only to have constant issues with RoboSats and payment failures. It's NOT a panacea when one tries to do it self sovereignly. And IF ASINQ or WoS or LNbig are always one hop away we need to really ask ourselves if we have the privacy we think we do. Or are we trusting these super nodes to be benevolent.
write
preview
related posts
49 sats \ 0 replies \ @john_doe 6 Feb
About point 5, I use Blixt and have the same problem. What I would recommend you to do is to open a channel to a node directly connected with Robosats, or (this is what I do) use Blink to receive, then send to yourself to your Blixt node. This works well and you don't lose a lot in fees. Wallet of Satoshi and Coinos failed with Robosats in my case. Lifpay worked but I don't use a Bolt card and fees are higher there, so don't recommend it (unless you use a Bolt card). With Zeus now you can buy inbound liquidity also, maybe it would work well with Robosats, but didn't test.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 6 Feb
And IF ASINQ or WoS or LNbig are always one hop away we need to really ask ourselves if we have the privacy we think we do. Or are we trusting these super nodes to be benevolent.
There was some discussion of this in #864262 and ACINQ replied
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Feb
I will explain you in a simple phrase: If in 2025 you are still arguing against LN, compared with whatever other crap, you are a fucking moron that learned nothing from Bitcoin.
Done, Debate is closed.
reply