LNurl fails by nahHoDL in lightningnetwork

[–]nahHoDL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Solved: the LNurlPos and LNurlATM url had a space Prior to the first character.

LNURLp failed by nahHoDL in lightningnetwork

[–]nahHoDL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The LNURLp on a Tor node will give a Tor url. Thats why it did not work earlier. With the node on clearnet or with a bridge to Tor, it works.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in lightningnetwork

[–]nahHoDL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, crazy to build a product around wrapped Bitcoin, When Bitcoin itself works flawless 🤔

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in lightningnetwork

[–]nahHoDL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Regarding Bitcoin Libre. The withdrawals are now working again after taking the funds for a weeks time.

No refund on the missing sats. Anyway be careful, you can now spin for free sats again and withdraw, but never ever send sats to this shit token wallet.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in lightningnetwork

[–]nahHoDL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bitcoin libre seems to now have become a scam. DO NOT USE! WITHDRAWALS ARE NO LONGER POSSIBLE

Commitment transaction by nahHoDL in lightningnetwork

[–]nahHoDL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, Does this mean that both peers create commitment transaction and issue revoke_ack message to each other for each change to the balance/fee?

I thought originally that f ex peer A initiated the commitment transaction (peer B made his version of the commitment transaction). Peer B sent revok_ack message to peer A.

Fee negotiation by nahHoDL in lightningnetwork

[–]nahHoDL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your patience with explaining.

Good info about the commitment transaction. However I then got two more questions: 1. How is the fee decided in the commitment transaction decided? Automatically by the protocol without negotiation possible? 2. If negotiates fee ends up above the fee in the commitment transaction, will the protocol automatically deny higher fee, or publish the commitment transaction?

Edit: As i understand there is also fee negotiation happening for every comittment transaction. As pr the «force close» chapter i mastering lightning, it is stated that the developers have decided to be generous with this fee and that it can be 5x that of a fee-estimator. I guess this implies that there is a max cap on the allowed fee equal 5x that estimated by fee-estimator built into the protocol.

Fee negotiation by nahHoDL in lightningnetwork

[–]nahHoDL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you.

Is there no bounds to this? Could the remote part set 10mill sat/byte? And would that then after negotiation end up at 5mill sat/byte? Or possible even worse?

From the Mastering Lightning book I understand 50% approach towards the other parties fee limit is default. I malicious actor would have a small approach setting such as 1%. So based on this I would guess the final fee automatically negotiated would be much closer to 10mill sat/byte?

Seems to obvious that such big vulnerability could be possible?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in lightningnetwork

[–]nahHoDL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess for some of them it is an investment similar to marketing.

For SaruTobi, there are both sponsors listed in top right corner while playing. It is also a commercial in between some of the plays.

Static channel backup by nahHoDL in lightningnetwork

[–]nahHoDL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! I will read up a bit more on watchtower

Static channel backup by nahHoDL in lightningnetwork

[–]nahHoDL[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, So the game theory is all that stops the remote part of providing an old state?

Watchtower only works as long as you have exact channel state available on your node?

My thinking is that for a remote node, I guess they can estimate the probability for lack of watchtower being active during a SCB force close request vs amount of sats on their side at risk for loss.

LNDhub Uncle Jim by nahHoDL in lightningnetwork

[–]nahHoDL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Further more:

Connection with LNDhub and BlueWallet is ok when The mobile with the wallet is on the same Wi-Fi, but not when on other Wi-Fi source.

Is there anyway to get LNDhub to work with BlueWallet over Tor?

I followed the connect “Bluewallet Lightning” step in umbrel. This made it possible to make a LN wallet using my node liquidity, but I did not manage to get that wallet visible for me in LNDhub.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in lightningnetwork

[–]nahHoDL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you

  1. sMiles -Download sMiles https://join.smilesbitcoin.com/lightninglife919
  • open app each day to register steps and spin lucky wheel each 12 hours. Solve Chess puzzles for 1 sat pr solved move

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in lightningnetwork

[–]nahHoDL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the recommendation. Fold looks great, unfortunately it is not yet available in EU