Introduction to Lightning Privacy 🚀 Lightning Privacy Research \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Summarizing thread: twitter / nitter

131 sats \ 0 replies \ @kr 30 Nov 2022

great to see more work being done to preserve/improve lightning privacy

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Klee 30 Nov 2022

BEAST

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 30 Nov 2022

Good stuff!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0260378aef 1 Dec 2022

Because we are doing a splice this can remove the need for equal output amounts because we can disguise the resulting amounts because the amount the user received is not explicit on-chain, only the total channel amount.

I'm not sure I grokked this. Say there's an Alice-Bob channel of capacity 4, currently 2-2 so balanced. Then Alice wants to add 1 to her side, provides a 1btc input, splices in by consuming existing channel utxo and creating a new one, now the channel is 3-2 and so total capacity is 5. In this non-coinjoin, simple case, the amount received is explicit on chain right? Only thing not explicit is which of A and B received it?

If we were 'coinjoining' in the sense of multiple splices in the same on chain tx, I can imagine that even without equal amounts, it's possible to create obfuscation of linkages, but right now I'm not immediately seeing how the spliced amounts are not explicit on chain.