pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @nyan 3 Jun \ on: Lightning is dead, long live the Lightning! bitcoin
What's the problem with connecting to ACINQ or WoS? You still custody your funds and they don't know who you are. In case they become compromised you can always go back and take on the hassle of connecting yourself to smaller nodes elsewhere in the network.
No technical issues with that, actually.
My point is that if we want a resilient LN that can eventually gracefully decentralise back again in the event of a big player being shut down, we need to make the LN network graph less sparse.
Just to not be trapped into small isolated components when some big players like WOS will be shut down.
Also, my gut feeling is that KYC procedures can be enforced easily on big LN nodes. For example, ACINQ could be forced to KYC anyone in order to open a channel with them. This would mean that eventually KYC-ed nodes will create a net of nodes that are only connected among each other. Since businesses are easily caught, I bet on them being the target for governments.
And since businesses nodes are the biggest nodes in LN, if that happens than we're cut out of the LN where real liquidity is.
I might be wrong, I hope I'm. But in the eventuality of that happening, opening channels with moderately big nodes but not giant business nodes like WOS shall be a priority.
And yes, that forces you to sacrifice a bit of routing earnings.
That's worth it imo.
reply