pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 6 replies \ @ek 22 Nov \ on: I'm Seth For Privacy, freedom maximalist and VP of Cake Wallet - AMA! AMA
Do you think BOLT12 improves receiver privacy on lightning "enough"?
Would it maybe even be enough that we might see DNMs use lightning payments instead of Monero?
If not, do you think DNMs will ever use lightning?
And what about silent payments? Not private enough for DNMs?
- Yes, it's a fantastic tool that (due to blinded paths) has a massive effect on making LN more private. Not sure I would say it's "enough" as other critical problems remain, i.e. most people using custodians, those not using custodians using wallets that do server-side path finding, and those not using those still using a few central LSPs and thus having most payments not benefit from onion routing.
- Not at all, LN's complexity for proper self-custodial usage makes it a non-starter, I don't expect to ever see a large DNM that supports LN, much less exclusively uses it. DNM vendors and customers want one thing -- privacy with little hassle. Monero is FAR superior at providing that and LN can't really ever come close due to it's architectural complexity.
reply
reply
Of course, thanks for the great question :)
reply
reply
Ah, no, I didn't see that! They're definitely a good fit for DNMs as they can really simplify the address UX and cut down on the need for server infra.
However, they don't work right now with multisig (they require MuSig) so it will be some time before it's technically possible for them to use on multisig-backed platforms.
To clarify though -- Silent Payments are really a UX improvement that merely improves privacy by enforcing the "no address reuse" basic privacy practice on Bitcoin w/o requiring extra server infra.
reply
Monero is FAR superior at providing that and LN can't really ever come close due to it's architectural complexity.
@remindme in 3 years
reply