2 sats \ 5 replies \ @nout 26 Dec 2021 \ on: Real life example of Lightning Network censorship AKA “What's wrong with LN in one tweet” bitcoin
I think this all worked out as expected. Anyone can decide who they make peer connections/channels with based on any criteria they would like. As soon as someone starts suggesting to others to cancel a specific user, then they face an immunity reaction from the community. This community doesn't appreciate censorship and cancel culture and it's good to show it.
This pot-stirring event also helps teach people about the value of anonymity and specific aspects of LN, so that's a plus.
People should learn how to have a "public face" and a private life. Have separations between them.
I run 3 LN nodes.
One is public, with name and all shit linked to telegram alias. But that telegram it doesn't represent any real man in real life. Is just an alias.
Another node is totally unknown, no name, no linked to anyone.
Another node, mobile, that is a bridge in between those 2.
Is ok to have a public node as far you know how to keep away from your real identity.
reply
Yeah, but the UX of compartmentalization like that is tricky and you have to learn a lot of things.
So this is nuanced and I'm on one side happy that community handles issue/attack like this quite well, but on the other side I'd be happier to see protocol level functionality like @thrown suggests.
reply
I know that minimint is adding functionality for managing Lightning stuff. Considering that it is meant to be an e-cash mint that provides default anonymity for its users, fingers crossed that it handles lightning in a similar way.
reply
This community doesn't appreciate censorship and cancel culture and it's good to show it.
The one thing better than hoping for good behavior is ensuring it on the protocol level.
reply
I agree with that. Are the systems like LN+ creating fully anonymous channels or do you still have to get to know the people? Maybe giving LN nodes a name is not a good idea...
reply