pull down to refresh
71 sats \ 2 replies \ @RedRadish688 25 Jun 2024 \ parent \ on: Muntiny Wallet: Updates after DNS issues lightning
I had around 100k sats in the freedom one federation and was able to withdraw them through multiple lighting withdrawals of around 30k each.
Reject Bolt12, it's an attack on Lightning to hurt its network effect by combining Tor+ECash into a payment spec
Could someone elaborate this point? I am not a lightning expert and bolt12, especially receiver privacy seemed like a good idea to me.
Amazing job! Looking forward to paying in a shop with opago.
Do you have any ressources that explain how the opago and its custody model works, so I can use these if I want to recommend opago to a new merchant?
Also would greatly appreciate a directory of onboarded merchants!
Maybe not, but I can't think of any modern example where it isn't nor have any reason to believe that will change. And I definitely can't think of any white markets that don't place any restrictions on transactions that occur there.
So let's look at the most famous example of El Salvador. People there use bitcoin for different things. Yes, there is the official Chivo wallet by the government, which requires KYC but people are free to use any wallet they prefer (including self custodial / non kyc) and pay with lightning.
What kind of market is that in your interpretation, white or black? And which kind of restrictions is the government placing on its citizens regarding bitcoin transactions?
I assure you this is NOT a prevalent idea in the Monero community 😂
I am tempted to start a poll in a Monero community and find out 😂 Does the community have something similar to stacker news? And to be clear, my intention is not to find reasons to attack the coin, I think it is doing more respectable things than most shitcoins. I am curious to see where it can go from where it is now and if it has any potential to expand in the long term.
Ok, none of what you said changes the fact that Monero IS more nimble at adapting than Bitcoin...
It is more nimble at making changes on the base layer by being more open to hard forks. Which I consider a bad idea for reasons mentioned. Is it more nimble as a whole, including higher layers, like lightning? I don't know, that is hard to quantify.
How about you, are you comfortable in storing a large percentage of your wealth in monero? Are you ever worried about any of the updates going wrong?
I'm not claiming it is a scaling solution for Monero/Bitcoin though...that's the major difference. I'm giving him an option if he values "instant" transactions more than self-custody (that doesn't make it scale Monero or Bitcoin. The only thing it's scaling is IOUs.)
Yes, maybe I should have expressed myself more accurately. You didn't say it is a scaling solution, but I noticed the same convenient approach of suggesting "just use e-cash" for something, that the coin hasn't solved natively.
Now yes, at least you mentioned, that it comes at the trade-off of self-custody, so I will give you that :D
I don't have any problem with Bitcoiners who are clear that ecash/liquid/custodial lightning/etc aren't scaling solutions for Bitcoin. Calle the creator of Cashu is a great example of someone that is very clear about this.
That is also how I view it.
What? Show me custodial solutions being pushed by the Monero community. There isn't any.
Also I am just seeing, didn't you push it here yourself?
#577071
Another option, you could use Monero-based ecash for places where you absolutely needed those "instant" transactions. Where finality was more important than self-custody
AKA black markets. You're agreeing with me. That's the only value prop. If you're going to follow the rules (white market transactions require permission - includes having your money taxed and inflated by default) there is no point in using Bitcoin.
I don't think protection from money printing is solely a black market thing. The reason money printing works today is because most people don't understand it is happening. If everyone was transacting with bitcoin, money printing could no longer be done in secret, it would have to be explicitly forced into the code and this way making everyone aware of it. So there is a huge benefit here in using bitcoin also in white market transaction through the immutability and clear rules guaranteed by the bitcoin blockchain.
What? Show me custodial solutions being pushed by the Monero community. There isn't any.
Not custodial solutions. Our conversation here was regarding people making ridiculous scaling statements, e.g. scaling through shitcoins on monero or scaling through ecash in bitcoin. And funnily enough someone just made again this statement below regarding monero: #578991. So it confirms my assumption, that is idea is quite prevalent in the monero community. While suggesting eCash as a scaling solution in Bitcoin comes with a lot of criticism.
Monero is even more nimble in adapting than Bitcoin to these things since the community is more open to upgrades.
Which is for good reasons. When people rely on a coin to store their wealth, you don't want to follow a mindset of "move fast and break things" and risk a hack that will make people's wealth evaporate overnight. Now I know many monero folks believe that monero is only for transacting, not for storing wealth, but that idea is in itself problematic. You need to be confident that you can store your wealth at least for a certain amount of time in that currency if you want to be able transact with it.
FCMP++ and Seraphis are being worked on and will change this though and allow L2s as well.
OK, that sounds like some interesting development, curious to see how it plays out.
Lightning leaks too much data. Receiver privacy is bad and amount privacy is not guaranteed from larger routing nodes. It's also trivial for large nodes to save all transaction data going thru them and break them later. What is worse is that most Lightning users are on custodians or using LSPs which provide no privacy.
Receiver privacy is already getting much better with BOLT12, but I will agree with you here yes, lightning still has work to do here regarding the usability of self custodial solutions. You are also right, if all your transactions go through a few large nodes, the current lightning encryption will also not protect you from post quantum deanonymization.
public-private key pairs and mining
These are in no way comparable in the levels of complexity to the stuff monero does. Public-private key cryptography is one of the simplest things you can do in cryptography. It is what the whole internet is build on.
Also there is the point of how many years can pass until an inflation bug would get noticed.
So you also really believe, that monero's "scaling solution" is to just use other shitcoins. I was right in assuming, that it is quite a prevalent belief in the monero community.
This is my understanding so far: eCash tokens are stored locally, but the mint stores the information for each token if it has been already spent or not. Otherwise double spends would be possible.
Regarding restoration I don't know the technical details, but I assume there is some kind of algorithm for deterministically generating eCash tokens from the seed (similar to how key derivation in onchain bitcoin works). However for each derived token, your wallet has to query the mint about whether it has already been spent or not. So I don't think completely offline restoration of eCash is possible.
On the website it says, if you want to remove safe mode and completely decensor it you have to upgrade to pro? Have you done that and think it's worth it?
Are you still experiencing issues? I cannot send or receive. Perhaps @TonyGiorgio can tell shed some light on this?
Same here, looks like a general issue.
Another question if you permit: How do you do about internet connection? I assume for your phone you use something like silent.link? Do you also have a home internet connection that you pay with bitcoin?
Because it is required that two third of them all decide together to freeze our assets. So the risk is diluted. I assume that by "them" you refer to the watchmen who manage the keys for Bitcoin in the multisig.
I think we are talking about different things here. What I was saying is, that if two thirds of the federation members decide to freeze your L-BTC, additional swap services will not help you, because in any case you would not be able to send your frozen L-BTC to the swap service.
Personally I would be more worried about assets such as USDt "frozen" than about L-BTC.
With USDt you mean USD-Tether, right? The threshold to asset freezes is certainly higher for a federation like liquid than for tether, but on the other hand if I look at how fast most companies tend to proactively comply when shit hits the fan, I don't think its so much higher either.
But Pedersen Commitments and Range Proofs are pretty well established at this point. They're based on cryptography from the 80s so I'm not very worried.
I haven't heard of that before, have to look more into it. Thanks for sharing
There are other critical areas where Bitcoin uses cryptography for security, yet these concerns never seem to come up there. Which seems a bit convenient to me.
Can you give some examples?
Another thing, that is not discussed often enough, when Monero is sold as an idiot proof privacy solution is the risk of post quantum deanonymization. Even monero researchers agree, that this is inevitable, it might be 5 years from now, it might be 40 years. And while it's generally accepted, that coins can switch their encryption algorithms when quantum computers become are real thing, nobody can remove what has already been written to the ledger.
So depending on your threat model, it might be necessary even with monero to act like transactions are traceable, the same way you would do with bitcoin. One could argue, that lightning can provide even more protection here, as the transactions are dispersed across different nodes.
What meaningful level of adoption do you think Bitcoin will reach? If it is even adopted world wide, yet 99% of users are transacting with custodians and under permissioned white markets...those transactions are pretty meaningless for it's core value prop. Might as well use fiat in those cases because there is no difference. I don't think most people want to transact with Bitcoin or Monero in any true sense
There are different reasons why someone would want to use Bitcoin. Circumventing government restrictions and surveillance can be one of them, preventing governments from stealing from you through money printing is another one. So I don't see why not everyone on this planet can gain from using it. And yes, on-chain bitcoin together with lightning are not enough for this, but there are still enough people within bitcoin who are trying to find solutions without compromising self custody.
but if no one can afford to make a transaction on your chain no one is going to run a node for it.
That's why we have additional layers. Big value movements happen on the first layer, smaller on the higher layers -> total adoption still going up. Also, I don't think the bitcoin community is fundamentally against an increase of blocksize (we had indirectly some increase even with segwit). The trade-offs are just taken much more carefully into account.
I don't know if you're expecting me to defend some other persons argument?...Well Bitcoiners are literally pushing Ecash as a method to scale Bitcoin, so your camp is not very different.
The difference is people in the Bitcoin community are also receiving a lot of criticism for making such statements, while the monero community seems quite complacent with these solutions.
What do you believe about Monero? Can it handle the current throughput of bitcoin and lightning without running into issues? Just through bigger blocks? Or which role do you think Monero will play? Will it just remain a niche currency for Dark markets?