Andreas is being persistent about the need for privacy on bitcoin’s base layer, using the analogy of how we “fucked up the internet” by not doing this on the base layer, and time window for doing this is closing. Do I understand this correctly he means full blown CT instead of just Schnorr?
Schnorr complicates the chain analysis afaik (and I love it), but I don’t see how it circumvents KYC (ID associated with an address).
Obviously, I am far less knowledgeable than AA on this topic, but I don’t see how privacy achieved on LN can be breached by analysing main chain TXs.
do we really want CT with potential drawbacks (harder to validate, taking more space, …) instead of just using LN as a mix?
what if I use 2 of my own LN nodes in scenario like this:
- btc main chain wallet 1 –> LN node 1
- LN node 1 –> LN node 2 (ideally diff IP, diff machines, VPN etc)
- LN node 2 –> btc main chain wallet 2
If I understand this correctly, LN will effectively break the link between main chain wallet 1 and 2 and no amount of KYC/chain analysis could identify me unless I mess it up later.
In AA’s analogy to the internet, with my limited understanding how it works the analogy of how separate layers interact is different to how BTC <--> LN works.
If I can decrypt the packets, my understanding is that I can reconstruct the information that is presented on higher layers from the data itself and I don’t see the same relationship with BTC/LN.
Or did I just misunderstand AA and he argues for Schnorr and other base layer privacy improvements but not necessarily full blown CT (confidential transactions, on par with say Monero)?
so, basically, where is my understanding wrong?