Please point to something misleading on it

It would fit nicely on Seth's fungibility graveyard But moneroleaks.xyz is a site about tracing monero, not about tracing bitcoin

Apparently Eclair supports this

Apparently I misread the spec. Someone highlighted this set of phrases: ``` if it includes offer_paths: MAY set offer_issuer_id. otherwise: MUST set offer_issuer_id to the node's public key to request the invoice from. ``` Then they pointed out the direct implication: if you include an offer path (aka blinded path) you do not have to set offer_issuer_id at all So the spec does not say the only exception is if you are connected only by private channels; a broader exception is there: use blinded paths. Related lyrics, I asked if Eclair's implementation of bolt12 hides your node id when creating a bolt12 offer with blinded paths, and the docs seem to say it does: ``` If you specify blindedPathsFirstNodeId, your public node id will not appear in the offer: you will instead be hidden behind a blinded path starting at the node that you have chosen. You can configure the number and length of blinded paths used in eclair.conf in the offers section. ```

There are lots of larpers in bitcoin, because you aren't a real bitcoiner unless you larp as one

After reviewing the bolt12 spec (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/12-offer-encoding.md) I find that bolt12 offers are less private than I thought. The spec says a bolt12 offer "MUST set offer_issuer_id to the node's public key" unless it is "connected only by private channels." This design seems like a misguided specification for anyone whose goal is to conceal their node id. I recommend against using any bolt12 generator that reveals your node id. But the spec seems to *want* nodes to do that, so I'm not sure there are any that attempt to conceal that data. Not sure what to recommend here except maybe just don't use bolt12 until its privacy protections improve, or an implementation comes out that avoids revealing your node id.

I think so, but it might be good to find out why you want to avoid letting them know your node pubkey in the first place. I initially assumed you wanted to do this because bolt12 offers reuse the same pubkey multiple times, which is bad for privacy. But rather than use a proxy, a simpler way to fix that is to make a new bolt12 offer after every payment. Bolt12 generators tend to make a new pubkey for each offer you generate.

Hashers, switch to Ocean! - you make more money - you filter out spam (if you choose to) - you have greater control over your blocks - Ocean currently has almost 10 exahash - if they get to 14 exahash they will be securely a top 10 mining pool

does Tether have a mining pool that contributes hashrate to Ocean?

does Tether have a mining pool that contributes hashrate to Ocean?

Ocean graduated to >1%. The used to be in "other," now they have their own slice of the pie chart source: https://mempool.space/mining

🎉 Join me at Des Coin Bitcoin Meetup! 📅 July 5, 2025 at 2:00 PM - 4:00 PMCDT 📍 Steak 'n Shake, 815, South 51st Street, Carriage Homes, West Des Moines, Polk County, Iowa, 50266, United States At our second bitcoin meetup, we'll pay for our meals with bitcoin, discuss bitcoin, and -- I hope -- do the following three things: (1) Start a list of btc-friendly merchants in the Des Moines area who either accept bitcoin as a means of payment or sell bitcoin-related goods and services (2) Showcase the merchants on our list so as to encourage members of the meetup to support those merchants by shopping at their stores (3) Discuss ways to increase traffic to those merchants via a bitcoin rewards system and by increasing the number of people at the meetup who hear about those merchants We'll meet at the Steak n Shake here: Steak n Shake 815 South 51st Street West Des Moines, IA 50265 🔗 https://plektos.app/event/naddr1qvzqqqrukvpzqgvra9r4sjqapufyl0vnc4kv4fz70e29em4c655y37vz206f0wt4qqtkgetn943k76tw943xjarrda5kuttdv4jhgats8acjgd

Support Floppy

The following chapter from Lightning Provacy goes into some detail on what data routing nodes and LSPs can log: https://lightningprivacy.com/en/routing-analysis I don't know of any analyses about the privacy implications of NWC. I suppose a relay could log how often you communicate with your node via that relay and what size your messages are, which may sometimes tell them what command you are using. Hmm...I think this would be easy to mitigate via message padding, which should be quite practical because NWC messages are just enceypted json, so you can add fields that don't do anything and pad all messages to a fixed length with no downsides. Hey, I think that's a pretty good idea. Thank you for making me think of it!

> My questions now are: 1. Are there any nodes that that specialize in opening small channels? Here is a list of channel sellers: https://supertestnet.github.io/list-of-channel-sellers/ I am particularly excited about liquiditystr, which is a frontend that lets you explore liquidity ads created by users of some FOSS LSP software. 4 people are currently running that software and advertising channel sales, with the cheapest option being a channel with 1 million sats of inbound capacity (about $1000) for a cost of under 900 sats (less than $1). > 2. What are the major concerns/factors that affect who you open a channel with? - Cost of the channel - Duration of service - Reliable uptime - Good connections - Success of payments - Privacy policy > 3. Are there any privacy considerations? Yes. Your channel counterparty gets to see some data about transactions that you are involved in, if they pass through his or her node. He or she gets to see partial amount info, partial fee info, timing info, payment hashes that might be linkable to you, and he or she gets to see that your node is the next hop on the route or, if you are the sender, they get to see that you are the prior hop on the route. Ideally, your LSP should have a nondisclosure policy, a habit of regularly deleting this data, and no means of contacting them, that way nothing can be subpoena'd from them. If an LSP does not seem to publish a privacy policy but DOES have a way to contact them, consider asking them to publish a privacy policy and to disable their contact form. > 4. Is 21K enough to do anything? I'm not sure what you mean by "anything." If you mean "is there anything I can buy for 21k sats?" then yes, that's worth about $20 so you can buy a gift card with it from bitrefill, for example. It's also plenty for the kind of lightning work I do, which is mostly experimental. But if you're a heavy lightning user and spend your coins often, you'll probably run out of outbound capacity pretty fast and have to frequently top up your lightning wallet, which could be annoying. In that case, I would get a bigger channel of at least 200k sats. > My goal is just to open a small channel to start testing BOLT12 payouts from @OCEAN It seems to me that a channel with 21k sats of inbound capacity would be fine for such tests.

You don't need to open up any channels. People who want to pay you or route traffic to you will open up channels *to* you if they think they will benefit from doing so. But if you *do* decide to open up channels, they are pretty cheap to acquire. Here is a list of channel sellers so you can see the different prices out there: https://supertestnet.github.io/list-of-channel-sellers/ The cheapest one I see is from user xmrk at this website: https://liquiditystr.space/ He is selling a channel with inbound capacity of 1 million sats, or about $1,000, for 894 sats, less than $1.

What seems retarded to me is looking at a clear example of a timing analysis trace performed on monero and whining that I shouldn't call it that just because a fact hurts your narrative doesn't mean it's false monero is traceable, has been traced, and crimes have been pinned on people due to those traces oh yeah and lightning offers better tools than monero for making a trace like this more difficult

> the document doesnt "imply" anywhere they have insight into that wallet It's still a timing analysis trace, it meets all 4 conditions. You act like condition 2 requires there to be an external wallet; I think there is evidence of an external wallet, but it's not even a requirement of doing such a trace. It's theoretically possible for someone to withdraw straight from a swap service to a KYC'd exchange and they could still do a timing analysis on that, though in at least in one case that's obviously not what he did, he clearly sent it to some other wallet first where he picked up 4 extra XMR -- which just makes the trace cover more hops. > so youre not "providing evidence" ... you're suggesting your own conclusions about what the evidence means That's a strange pair of sentences. I didn't provide "evidence" but I draw conclusions about "the evidence"? What evidence? The evidence I supposedly didn't provide? Get real.

A statement is not a lie just because you disagree with it

No. Maybe I should make a clone of rack.supertestnet.org but for bolt12