Bitcoin Forum

ㅤ

This was confirmed to be true. I read about it on cointelegraph. Normally, there are still vulnerabilities in lightning network that have not been known, and some have not been solved. That is why it is very impotant to know that only small amount of bitcoin should be used to open a channel and that we should not leave much amount of bitcoin on a channel. Like electrum wallet, it even warns anyone that want to make use of lightning network on electrum wallet to use small amount of bitcoin and indicated it is still under testing. This has not been the first of the vulnerabilities and this may not be the last yet.

I will prefer the regular channel for now by using only small amount of bitcoin for lighning while wumbo channel will be only when lightning network has been successfully used for years without no vulnerabilities again.

Yep, it's important for anyone using the newer and more experimental features in Lightning to understand the potential risks.  At the moment, I'd probably advise people only use wumbo with people and services they know and/or trust.  Otherwise stick to smaller amounts.

Hopefully they find a solution for this and other attack vectors quickly.

we badly need solutions from these potential issues as regular btc network is really getting expensive. we need LN to be on this game to address this high tx fees.
 and maybe this is the reason why a lot of people are still not comfortable using LN, because it is like unknown territory for them. so they stick to the regular network costing hefty amount of fees.
 hoping to see more merchants/institutions adding LN in their system.

This is why LN is still not out of beta officially, and it's a good thing - if there was more mainchain adoption, there would also be more frustration and negative rep due to these bugs. Bitcoin's mainnet shouldn't be a playground for experimenting with features, like many altcoins have, it should be as safe as possible, because people will rely on it. So far Bitcoin has great track record, as since the early days there weren't any major bugs that lead to serious attacks, and I hope there will never be.

Most of these problems are temporary and I believe that it is easy to solve them in the future. The scalability of the lightning network makes it less trustworthy, and therefore even losing money will not be severe.
Secondly, most of the transactions are carried out on the lightning network in daily payments such as buying daily necessities, which I think the confidence factor in is not so influential.

In general, the lightning network should be used with caution at amounts which you believe are significant.

LN is still being worked on by the developers so yes it is still vulnerable to attacks. It is still very early to use it for big transactions it is better to take risks with a small amount. In the coming years, most issues will get resolved as it has happened in the past. Still, a long way to go if LN wants to compete with the banks.

That is extremely right, there are a potential risk and vulnerability of lightning network usage. It seems we are still on the experimenting stage on this method of transferring our bitcoin into other wallets and that is why there's a vulnerability on it.

People still don't know how to use this LN transaction, bulk transaction with a micropayment is good to use LN in the transaction to save fees but it required precautionary measures to avoid an error transaction. On the other theory of some critics that I have read somewhere in the article that, this lightning network it may not solve the bitcoin network effect problem.

Since the network was invented, there have been numerous cases where the experts warned us about the problems lightning network had right from the beginning. I do believe this is good that these kind of articles are being published so that people are able to concentrate on the fact that * cheaper transactions are not always going to be better for the community *

What we need is :
A lot of Changes in the lightning network
A more opened and better review about the same

Lightning network is good when you are actually trying to make small small transactions without a lot of significance. But when it comes to businesses we have to still wait for a while .

But still lightning network is good since it's able to solve the problem of waiting for long time for the transaction to be confirmed and at the same time this way you can easily buy coffee with bitcoins :D , but now a days people are arguing that they can use proof of the transactions and then solve the problem.

I doubt if all investors will use Lightning Network even after its testing completion because of fear of been attacked, bitcoin had been operated since ages without any severe bugs and issues in transactions. LN should be operated with caution and with low amount of bitcoin also to avoid huge lost, maybe an unnecessary errors may occur. Let's see how LN will fully change the bitcoin entire network in the future.

---

I have questions to ask here regarding transactions in LN and segwit.
[1]. I have learnt that using segwit for bitcoin transaction saves fee, what's the difference in fee between LN and electrum segwit transactions?

[2]. Why are some users waiting to use LN in saving fees instead of using Electrum Segwit wallet that's not vulnerable?

Based from these questions, you really need to research even just one good article about lightning network.

Anyways, a SegWit supported wallet will provide you a discount from the usual transaction fee but still have to be "mined" together with legacy transactions.
Lightning however (once you've established a channel) will only cost you about 0, 1 or a few satoshi per lightning payment, and it'll be sent in an instant.

At least the developer noticed this sooner than later and informed people because imagine if LN became widely being used and hackers took advantage of it. It's not like this problem can't be solve. It's still a good news because developers are not stopping and actively developing LN. Although it's still early for LN to be used for business, I'm still positive about this.

Who knows, LN might be the development that will save Bitcoin from having absurd fees in the future.

and many people are seeing the flaws with LN
there was a reason why bitcoin became a think in 2009+. because other payment methods that dont use a blockchain have flaws by default

there are many many flaws in LN. even in the basic features that have been around since the start, flaws still exist

do not think its just new stuff you have to be careful of. be careful of all parts of LN

as the screen shot twitter notes show its not just a block channels with near 500 payments
but also looping a payment through the same route can block them up

remember its not just channel numbers. but also amounts the people along the route have available to route
if 10 people on a route only have 100million millisats they allow to be uable for routes.
even without 'channel limits' people can just loops a payment in a circular route though those 10 people multiple times. very cheaply


other flaws are that payments are not regulated by the wider network. this 'privacy feature' is actually a security flaw because channel partners can modify certain things. this happens if factories/watchtowers ask customers to use a specific app to open a administered channel with their service. they can defraud their customers(yep it happens)

so dont just think its one flaw thats just happened. there are many many flaws. and im just saying the ones that have been known for a while and still a risk.

some flaws are secretly known and hoping devs fix them for the security of users. but some flaws even after months have not been fixed. so again dont hope that its just a temporary thing that will be fixed straight away. some flaws cant be fixed. so watch out

some flaws people think only happen to naive users that dont know how the software works. but even the lead devs of LN have lost funds due to flaws.

so just be careful and stop listening to the LN promoters that talk about it as if its as good as bitcoin. its not
bitcoin has many built in security features from day one. and thats what made it so unique
LN is open to thousands of flaws and they have to try filling those holes
thus the complete different security model of finance
so again for emphasis stop listening to LN promoters that want to pretend that LN is secure and safe. they are thinking more about their wallet filling up. not about users personal security/wallets emptying

Injected segwit with potential Vulnerability

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/adfrzl/craig_wright_on_fatal_flaw_in_segwit_im_giving/

to have more  

Vulnerability in Lightning

is ...

sigh - but sure, bad aussie

https://coingeek.com/crime-cartel-bitmex-kraken-binance-bitcoin-com-blockstream-ethereum/

Did it ever occur to you that someone who has proven themselves to be a notorious habitual liar (https://medium.com/@MyLegacyKit/the-faketoshi-fifteen-times-two-76e8060905b4) who will say anything to get attention might be making up this supposed vulnerability?  Actually, that's a rhetorical question.  Obviously nothing occurs to you aside from mindlessly spreading faketoshi's lies like a good little lapdog.  

Faketoshi has no credibility.  You have no credibility.  Why would you expect anyone to take you seriously?

LN has nothing to do with the Crypto Idea of blockchain that saves TX forever.  Its just the sign of BTC beeing not adaptable on real wourld spending use

The tech might be an issue, but the world sees the legal ones before now

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-william-p-barr-announces-publication-cryptocurrency-enforcement-framework


https://decrypt.co/44394/attorney-general-plan-crack-down-crypto-framework

"The report also said that criminals can avoid being traced by using cryptocurrency instead of fiat and request digital assets to pay for illicit goods, such as child pornography or weapons—seemingly ignoring the fact that cash is used for much of the same, while crypto is transacted across transparent, public ledgers."

Take that serious - not me

EDIT: Hot from the press

https://cointelegraph.com/news/lightning-network-vulnerability-discovered-upgrade-immediately

Sure, tech fix is one thing  ....

quite the opposite. a second decentralized layer on top of the immutable and decentralized blockchain of bitcoin is the exact sign that bitcoin is adapting to the real world usage as a currency for processing billions of transactions by practically removing the cap on TPS.

Bitcoin itself is too still in beta. These techs will probably never leave their beta states because they will never become a bug free full version.

Hu ? so Jack and Mircostrategy just invested 500Mio into beta ? - hold my beers

What part of the statement didn't you understand?  And why is it so hard to believe a company have opted to invest in something experimental?  Yes, Bitcoin is still in Beta.  The latest Bitcoin Core release is 0.20.1 so the clue is in the version numbering.  Once software is out of Beta, it conventionally adopts a 1.xx.x version number.

There's no such thing as bug free software, except from some Hello World programs. Bitcoin will be out of beta when the devs will feel like there's enough features and solved problems to justify it. Still, Bitcoin's beta status is not the same as beta status of some other software, Bitcoin never had some closed private trials, if we don't count something that Satoshi might have been doing when he was still writing the code; and Bitcoin won't see a relaunch of the network when it will be out of beta.

People invest in projects while they are in their early stages all the time what's so surprising about it?