269 sats \ 8 replies \ @theinstagibbs 19 Dec 2023 \ on: The Lightning Network is not sufficiently decentralized lightning
Decentralization is not an end, it's a means. What are you looking for decentralization to give it.
Probably better guarantees of LN's continued operation without KYC requirements and less single points of failure such as AWS outage possibly creating a significant impact on the network.
reply
You will always be able to avoid KYC on open protocols.
reply
But to what extent will it useful? Two distinct LN networks would suck and the non-KYC network would likely be smaller and less useful.
reply
the nodes on the center doesn't know where the payment come from and where it goes.
So if 3rd node is able to connect to the node asking for kyc, and you are able to connect to that 3erd party node. you will be able to route payments via the KYC node without them to know.
reply
More realistically, the larger nodes will have kyc agreements with all channel partners, a whitelist. And they may have have to prevent connections from all other nodes. That is where my idea of kyc vs non-kyc lightning networks comes from
reply
ok, lets say, me iguano, did a kyc with bitrefill and I have a channel with them, and you create a channel with me, (i did not request from you kyc)
how will bitrefill know?
reply
If it's unannounced, they wouldn't know. But you can probe for unannounced channels and when a partner is found to be in non-compliance they might be removed from the white list and the channel is closed
reply
same can be said for blockchain addresses.
you can "be" on the network but e-commerces can reject payments from non - KYC addresses and in fact can be worst as they can request to every partner to KYC information of every address they interact with.
I see that scenario easier to implement. the LN is a step forward in privacy.