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 _______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
