[2019-09-29] A Dangerous Bug in Bitcoin’s Lightning Network Has Been Fixed

[richardsNY]

ok, so the actual Lightning devs seem to be saying that real-world instances of the exploit have happened, not just a bunch of whiners from competing cryptocurrencies. That's not to say that someone couldn't be deceiving the devs, you have to take these claims on trust, as it'd be simple to falsify any evidence. But I guess that must be the underlying point: some person who the Lightning devs genuinely trust have reported this to them.

Is there any indication of how much has been stolen according to those making the claims? Tbh, I wouldn't expect the devs to come up with such statements if they haven't been given the data to review what actually has happened. If they did anyway, then that's a very poor show from the devs because it's more fuel to those looking to leverage it against Bitcoin.

[1714851121]

1714851121

[1714851121]

1714851121

[1714851121]

1714851121

[1714851121]

1714851121

[Carlton Banks]

well, they believe it really happened, and that's all we (and they) have: belief

like I said, it's be easy to fake this, so I guess they must trust whoever reported it to them. The data could be totally correct, but the person reporting it could have known about the bug, and stole the money from themself, then presented the thief as a 3rd party when in fact they "stole" their own money.

not seen the details, so I have no info as to how much was lost

[DaveF]

well, they believe it really happened, and that's all we (and they) have: belief

like I said, it's be easy to fake this, so I guess they must trust whoever reported it to them. The data could be totally correct, but the person reporting it could have known about the bug, and stole the money from themself, then presented the thief as a 3rd party when in fact they "stole" their own money.

not seen the details, so I have no info as to how much was lost

As I said someplace else. It was known and discussed informally by a small group @ DefCon back in early August.

However since:
(a) I really didn't pay attention to it
(b) everyone I mentioned it to after accused me of FUD
(c) since it was just a bunch of people sitting around drinking & talking at a bar I had no proof said conversation ever happened.
(d) I really didn't understand the attack (did I mention drinking at a bar)
(e) the amount of funds I have on my lighting node won't buy 2 cups of coffee so even if all the of lightning network crashed it and I lost all of it, it would be a zero event for me at the end of the day.

I didn't follow up on it.

So there was more then 1 person who knew about it so it's a safe bet someone did something. That's just human nature.

As to how much. I doubt it was that much or there would be discussions about it. But that's just my opinion.

-Dave

[BitHodler]

I know I might be wrong sometimes, however, is it not right for someone to criticize, to question and to make skeptical comments in the forum anymore? Is it deserving for someone to be accused of opening a discussion because I only want attention?

The argument does not need to be deciphered. No one agreed because it is an unpopular opinion.

It's not necessarily that your opinion is unpopular, or that you can't question certain things, but the way it was understood by people (due to your wording) is the actual problem.

Bitcoin transactions might be insecure in the Lightning network because of unknown bugs and attack vectors. True or false?

True. If you worded it like that I'm sure your previous statement wouldn't have backfired on you.

[1Referee]

However, I shake my head on how the Lightning network can quickly transform bitcoin as secure money into bitcoin, the unsafe money.

Do not listen to people who are encouraging everyone to be reckless.

Bitcoin transactions might be insecure in the Lightning network because of unknown bugs and attack vectors.

No one agreed because it is an unpopular opinion.

No one agreed because it was pure fud. You can't expect to say something that is factually incorrect without being pointed at that. Please read both opinions of yours above and tell me how fundamentally different both opinions are. It's not an attack on you at all, so please don't see it as such, but there are newbies reading through this forum too, and they might take your initial words for granted.

[bbc.reporter]

@1Referee. Unknown bugs and attack vectors are fud? Will it stop to be fud only until someone loses his money because of a bug in the Lightning network?

[1Referee]

@1Referee. Unknown bugs and attack vectors are fud? Will it stop to be fud only until someone loses his money because of a bug in the Lightning network?

I never said bugs in Lightning are fud. I don't even rule out that more bugs will be found this year.

The main fud part is where you said that Lightning can quickly transform Bitcoin as secure money into Bitcoin the unsafe money. That's incorrect. It has always been clear to anyone using it that there are certain tradeoffs when using Lightning. If you want to enjoy the uttermost security, then just conduct on-chain transactions.

Nothing will change how on-chain transactions work and no security will be lost due to Lightning. Bitcoin and Lightning are two different transactional foundations.

[bbc.reporter]

@1Referee. Where is the fud? You also agree on the bugs and more hidden bugs. You have also mentioned that there are tradeoffs.

Also, I am wrong about saying the Lightning network is transforming bitcoin from safe to unsafe money. I should have said from safe transactions to unsafe transactions.

[Carlton Banks]

^^^

see what I'm talking about, anyone?

[bbc.reporter]

?

ok, so the actual Lightning devs seem to be saying that real-world instances of the exploit have happened, not just a bunch of whiners from competing cryptocurrencies. That's not to say that someone couldn't be deceiving the devs, you have to take these claims on trust, as it'd be simple to falsify any evidence. But I guess that must be the underlying point: some person who the Lightning devs genuinely trust have reported this to them.