Bitcoin experts have not yet described this attack in the literature probably because making babies has become unfashionable in the West. So I'll be the first.
I have a 1.5 year old that leaves a trail of destruction during his waking hours. Literally walks from room to room randomly, like a tornado. One of his MOs is rearranging things either into the trash bin or into laundry baskets. Often I'll be loading the machine and find an apple under a pile of clothes. The kid will also unceremoniously dismiss perfectly good household objects to the trash.
Anyway, I left my wallet on the coffee table two days ago. Other than IDs, credit cards and other shit I carry as part of my normie disguise, I have a Tapsigner with a small but not insignificant amount of btc. Unlike my main stash I was lazy and didn't back this up. Yesterday I had to leave, couldn't find my wallet and left without it because I was in a rush. Looked for it today and after a few minutes I realized that the deepness of the shit I'm in is entirely dependent on the whim of my baby. I had already taken out the trash, and as I was pondering the thought of digging through the giant trash container outdoors, my other kid thought to check the laundry bin and there it was.
The Evil Baby Attack is a particularly insidious threat to your stash. Unlike the Evil Maid Attack, it is very difficult to interrogate the perpetrator, and the use of torture is frowned upon. There also doesn't appear to be a profit motive, or apparently any discernible motive at all. Further research is required to come up with mitigation strategy, but on the meantime, mind your stash.
Did you check out @kr 's post yesterday?:
https://stacker.news/items/184255
Lots of responses that relate to your question.
Nick Szabo
David Chaum
I feel like the Pavlovian dog, being reconditioned everyday.
And I'm all for it.
Day 250 of snailposting everyday 'til BTC hits $100k.
...and 50 push-ups. (20 - 20 - 10)
__@_'-'
We ourselves can not believe it. The previous government embraced decadent dictators only, instigated people to "feel proud of their poverty" (it declared "the day of the slum dweller pride"), imposed as mandatory middle school books promoting kids to suck each other dicks (with explicit drawings and all), destined millions to "scientifical research" for, and I quote, "studying the anus of batman", etc. Fast forward 80 years of ever accelerating unbounded decadence and now we have this. Even the ones of us who fought for this can't process it, seems like a parallel reality.
https://i.postimg.cc/2StzzzDn/meme.jpg
https://www.zapread.com/i/--F
For me, LSP mainly means network connectivity services. If an ISP connects you to the Internet, an LSP connects you to Lightning. You can provide internet services not as an ISP, or Lightning services not as an LSP.
The main service an LSP provides is liquidity services via opening channels.
https://m.stacker.news/14097
I always saw this as no coder bro cope.
I don't get paid for shipping 90% of a product. Or 95% of a product. Or 99% of a product. I get paid for shipping 100% of a product and maintaining it indefinitely.
First law of thermodynamics: shit happens. Shit has happened. Shit will continue to happen.
AI does not fix this but it does indeed help you fix things faster.
You could absolutely do what you are suggesting, but sender privacy on lightning is already quite good. The only way they could discern it was YOU that was paying is by probing your other channels to determine if the balances changed. (If yes, you could have easily forwarded the payment from elsewhere.)
A fair amount of probing goes on in the network - mostly passive, i.e. seeing changes in channel balances over time. This is about the worst you have to contend with.
To reclaim some privacy here it's recommended that you set your htlc_maximum_msat to much less than the total channel size. I like to use ~25%, which means I can only route a payment that it at maximum 25% of the total size of the channel. However, if your channel balance is greater than 25% of the capacity, it also means a single probe can't determine the exact balance of the channel.
Of course, channels can be probes in both directions, so if your peer doesn't also set a smaller htlc_maximum_msat, the channel balance could still be probed from their side.
I expect more implementations to roll out privacy preserving features and defaults outlined in the "Oakland Protocol" in the near future, which should help mitigate channel surveillance via probing.
I would encourage you to create the manual payment routing script because it sounds great, but also, you're only protecting yourself from someone who's already continually probing your channel balances, so it may be overkill.
I was plagued by this same problem until I turned them off in all my territories.