Piotr Włodarek [ARCHIVE]

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2019-12-20 to 2019-12-20
💬 Posted a total of 1 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories:
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Public Key

npub19yu2cp0hfu7826vc5rqxl6x09vshs9tssqxrw29hu2zge57mszcq9kmz08

Profile Code

nprofile1qqszjw9vqhm570r4dxv2psr0ar8jkgtcz4cgqrph9zm79pyv60dcpvqnvl3x7

Author Public Key

npub19yu2cp0hfu7826vc5rqxl6x09vshs9tssqxrw29hu2zge57mszcq9kmz08

Show more details

Last Notes

2023-06-09 12:57:51

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2019-12-20
📝 Original message:
We do know for a fact that chain analysis software stops tracing
backwards when found a compliant exchange address (good), gambling site
address (bad), etc.
Theoretically, LN channel closure transaction should stop chain analysis
software from analysing the chain further, as it is an exit gateway from
another world, correct?
Not saying this is already implemented by surveillance companies but one
would expect that in the future.
If so, we could envision faking LN like transactions to road block the
analysis.
That would entail: 1) channel funding tx, 2) reasonable delay, 3)
channel closure tx with amount split (and not merged) so it looks natural.
Advantages over using the actual LN I believe are obvious: no liquidity
problem, no data exchange with LN public nodes, simplicity, etc.
Obviously, this assumes LN usage itself is not blacklisted by
surveillance companies.
Does it make sense?
Or am I missing something?
--
qertoip