31,062 sats stacked
stacking since: #169890longest cowboy streak: 3
Joking aside AI tools making it scary easy for savvy tourists to come here and get around with minimal problems language wise. World's about to get a whole lot smaller.
I had to give up on Fountain finally. Nothing to do with the rewards. If anything I was a net booster. But the bugs just got too much.
Thanks for all the replies to this thread. The summary for me is:
1: my particular issue seems NOT to be an LSP sweep and the transaction seems stuck in Mempool due to the high fee situation. The Mutiny UI doesn't help showing 0 balance with no indication of unconfirmed funds, which goes against standard wallet UI, but thanks to @TonyGiorgio kindly looking into the GitHub ticket and demonstrating the transaction is in Mempool the funds appear to be safe assuming they are confirmed eventually.
2: the users who did suffer loss of funds with Mutiny are iOS users and due to a bug in iOS Mutiny PWA broadcasting incorrect state they lost their funds as is by design in the LN. However, funds are apparently being returned by the LSP (Voltage, as posted by @gkrizek and confirmed by @benthecarman ) so this is nothing malicious and is ultimately an inconvenience but not leading to any permenant loss of funds
3: The FC issue appears related to hodl invoices an innovation from Zeus which allows users to receive LN payments even when offline. The issue is that the HTLCs are often sort of in a pending state and that can lead to FCs in the case the sender is offline for an extended period of time. Another cause appears to be Safari browsers clearing state leading to errors (As per @benthecarman). Mitigation steps include not being offline for too long, or not sending to users of hodl invoices. Further mitigations mentioned are an LDK fork from Mutiny which will caused a failure to start node rather than a FC of channel. (As per @benthecarman ) Also there is talk of blacklist to prevent payments to hodl invoices or at least in the future a way to flag them for special treatment to mitigate the issue, such as the ability to cancel pending payments before they expire .(mentioned by @petertodd ) LDK is also working on some means to extend the time interval within which a sender must come online in order to avoid the FC. (As per @benthecarman) there is also talk of adding watchtower support by LDK to make sure FC--of they do occur--are swept in a timely fashion without user needing to be online (as per @benthecarman)
4: As @TonyGiorgio mentions, Mutiny is very clear that Mutiny is a beta project and that issues could happen, and to fund channels with this risk in mind. So people should not expect things to work perfectly at all times in such a fast paced development frontier as LN dev.
5: For me, I had been guilty of being naive not so much with Mutiny, as the team were always upfront on the risks and I never had much in there, but with other wallets like Phoenix I've been too cavalier. What this incident has revealed to me is that the nature of LN means that if you are not running a 24/7 connected LN backend or at least a 24/7 connected watchtower then funds will always be at serious risk in a LN mobile wallet. Not just because of malicious rug/ exit scam risk but because of bugs and things that can and do happen and can lead to loss of funds. Yes, I should have known this. But they polish and exceptional user experience of a wallet like Phoenix sort of hides the risk from users. Going forward I will be trying to keep this lesson in mind and be a lot more wary when using mobile LN wallets without hosting my own backend.
I accept FCs being "issues", but a bug that causes loss of funds to me is a more serious matter as Mutiny calls itself self custodial. But if the LSP is able to sweep your funds then it clearly is not actually self custodial. So unless I'm missing something Mutiny seems to be misrepresenting itself. However, if this issue is not just Mutiny but other wallets like Phoenix too that would be a major concern as I have more sats in Phoenix and am also under the assumption it's "self custodial". But if this is an illusion I will need to rethink my threat model.
Not sure on the FC. I heard it was something to do with HTLCs getting stuck and so you need to make sure you open up the wallet once every 24 hours to avoid the FC. But life got in the way for me and I had left it a couple of days. With that said there was no stuck HTLCs I was aware of so no idea why it FCd.
That was one thing, and I decided to give up on Mutiny for that reason. Was only using it for zaps anyway. For spending LN I'm using Phoenix and there are none of these kinds of issues. For zaps I am switching to WoS because it works and because the amounts are so small the rug pull wouldn't hurt so much.
But anyway this funds disappearing thing with Mutiny is a real concern because FCs are one thing and annoying, cost fees etc., , but outright losing funds I thought were self custodial is a different matter. I wonder if this kind of thing could also happen on Phoenix? If as Darth points out it's an LDK issue maybe any of these "non custodial" wallets that use LDK and LSPs could be at risk of similar bugs? Although like I said I have never had these kinds of problems on any other wallet than Mutiny.
Article seems to be written by a nocoiner friend of a shitcoiner. Rolling your own security like this is a great way to lose your stash. Maybe you don't care if you own dogecoin.
I believe it has nothing to do with Halloween. (Our modern conception of that holiday). It's about All Hallows Eve, though. I.e. the eve of All Saint's Day. That was the day Martin Luther chose to publish his 95 theses, which precipitated the Reformation. I believe Satoshi was mindful that the Bitcoin white paper would be as impactful on the direction of world history as the 95 theses.
Since when do we listen to "prominent professors of economics"? This whole thread is highly sus to me. Just what problem evident in the year 2023 are you so earnestly trying to address with this? Seems like FUD.
Sounds like an attack on Bitcoin to me. Why are we even worrying about this now? There are 1000 higher priority things. Come back in 2-3 halvings time and see if this problem is starting to show signs of manifesting. I certainly can't see any now, as hash rate is up only so far.
Level 0 -- lost my corn in a boating accident.
It looks like RAM is fixed at 4 or 8 gb options. My understanding is that since the UTXO set is at around 8gb already nodes should have 16gb memory to perform decently. Therefore, this looks to me DOA in terms of using as a Bitcoin full node. Even if it had a 16gb option, why would anyone pick this over a used Thinkpad or else an Odroid or an Intel NUC or something like that? It looks like it's going to use more power too and recommends active cooling. One of the advantages of the pi 4B was low power draw and passive cooling so really not seeing much point in this. I think the reality is that the Bitcoin Blockchain has grown beyond a low power ARM SBC, anyway.