-
@ b799e60f:07815677
2025-05-18 03:56:36
nostr:npub1p47we20qqrn3rcnrhs22ygt2kayk320fq046y998zscq4hk7tgsqjn2qfl
Thanks for the reply.
“the opposite of this” is a strong take! I’d love to unpack that a bit, if you're open to it. Here’s how I see each point in relation to Lightning Network (LN), and I’m curious where you think I go wrong:
1. Privacy is the Default
This one’s nuanced. Monero *does* offer default on-chain privacy through ring signatures, stealth addresses, and confidential amounts. But LN, by design, doesn’t even record most transactions on-chain and uses onion routing, meaning **there’s no global record of payments**, and only individual nodes know their part of the route.
In some real-world situations (e.g. when avoiding passive surveillance), **LN can offer *better practical privacy* than Monero**, especially when routing through multiple hops. But unlike Monero, LN privacy **isn't automatic or guaranteed**, and relies on channel setup, uptime, and avoiding surveillance nodes.
So I wouldn’t say LN is the *opposite* here, more like it **approaches privacy differently**, with some notable strengths of its own.
2. Fungibility is Freedom
Bitcoin itself lacks fungibility, and LN doesn’t fix that fully. But it does **obscure transaction history** in a way that helps reduce the risk of “tainted coins” spreading, no clear UTXO trail for individual payments. Still, Monero’s by-design fungibility is stronger. So LN makes progress here, but doesn’t fully solve it.
3. Decentralization is Non-Negotiable
LN can be decentralized in architecture, but in practice, large hubs and custodial wallets dominate. It’s a valid concern, there’s a **centralization trend in usage**, even if not enforced by protocol.
4. OpSec is Sacred
LN adds a lot of complexity: channel management, uptime, routing issues. Monero’s UX isn’t perfect either, but it doesn’t require you to be online or actively manage channels. LN is more demanding here.
5. Hard Work > Hype
LN devs have been grinding for years, with little hype compared to altcoin ecosystems. I’d say LN **does fit** this value.
6. ASIC Resistance is a Shield
Not relevant to LN — it doesn’t rely on mining. If the critique is about Bitcoin’s base layer mining being ASIC-heavy, that’s fair, but LN itself can run on low-power devices. So this one doesn’t really apply.
7. Open Source is the Backbone
LN is fully open-source, with multiple implementations and a lot of collaborative innovation. No contradiction here.
8. Adapt or Die
LN is literally an adaptation, a layer built to scale Bitcoin without compromising its base layer principles. Seems **perfectly aligned** with this value.
9. Community is the Core
LN has a growing, passionate developer and builder community, especially around new protocols like LNURL, Bolt12, and Fedimint. Not as ideologically unified as Monero maybe, but **still very community-driven**.
10. Surveillance is the Enemy
LN helps avoid surveillance in important ways, no global ledger, onion routing, and off-chain payments. It’s not bulletproof (channel probing, timing analysis are issues), but it’s far from surveillance-friendly. I’d say **this goal is shared**.
So overall: Monero and LN **share some deep values**, even if they prioritize and implement them differently. Saying LN is "the opposite" feels like an oversimplification, especially when LN’s privacy in certain contexts may actually *outperform* Monero’s probabilistic obfuscation.
Would love to hear your take — which of these points do you think I misunderstood or gave too much credit to? Genuinely curious where you think the biggest flaws in my view are.