A few assumptions are made in some attacks in that analysis, such as “KYCed coins used to open channels.” Also, some of the suggested mitigations are already active in LN implementations. Of course people fuck up. In any case, it’s definitely more private than non-coinjoined on-chain transactions.
true true 👍
I'm all for improving BTC privacy and
as you say
its better than transparent on-chain txs.
but its also true that most mitigations are likely to be defeated as surveillance increases.
LN privacy is kinda like BTC in 2013. any "privacy" is mostly because nobody is looking.
ie, its not a battle-tested network yet.
and these "just use LN" morons are anti - intellectual and actively subverting people's privacy by saying there isn't a problem.
“most mitigations are likely to be defeated as surveillance increases”
Of course the same applies to coinjoined and Monero transactions, assuming no further improvements.
true
except CJs and Monero are more battle tested and already resilient. so barring extreme technical breakthroughs we have reasonable certainty they will continue to provide privacy.
which is NOT true of LN, where privacy guarantees are difficult to quantify, dependent on use-cases and poorly understood.
there isn't a whole hell of a lot anyone can do about a diffie-helman exchange ya know? its been around a while.
I’d say that CJ is part of LN privacy, as something that should always be done prior to using UTXOs for LN nodes.
Oddbean new post about login | logout