LndHub VS circuitbreaker

LndHub v1.4.1 (Released: 26th September 2021) - https://github.com/BlueWallet/LndHub/releases

You can change fees by editing lndhub config file. You just need to find where it is located. For umbrel (rpi4) you will find all info here: https://github.com/BlueWallet/LndHub/issues/294

LndHub v1.4.1 (Sep 26th, previous release was v1.4.0 on Sep 22nd): Release page "Updated Debian in dockerfile from 12-buster to 16-bullseye"

LNDHub v1.4.0 (Sep 22nd, previous release was v1.3.5 on Jun 21st): Release page

You could use something like https://github.com/BlueWallet/LndHub which is a software on top of LND that allows for multiple accounts. So you could run the LND and manage the channels while having multiple clients that don't have to bother with all of that but just use create accounts on top of our setup to utilize the lightning network.

Ref: https://github.com/BlueWallet/LndHub/issues/285

BlueWallet relies on what are called LndHubs, essentially an account system on top of a lightning node. By default, BlueWallet uses their own LndHub when you install their app. But you can provide your own. You could either manually set up an LndHub, or use this incredibly simple solution:

Circuit Breaker v0.3.1 (Released: 25th July 2022) - https://github.com/lightningequipment/circuitbreaker/tags

A lightning 'firewall' to avoid griefing attacks (see Github repo, and Bitcoin Magazine article). Alpha quality so should be as an option, not in main guide yet.

In the case depicted in Fig-2, our routing node is directly connected to the custodial service. This is ideal to optimize the attack: the deposits have no cost, HTLCs will settle quickly, and we avoid the limitations set by other routing nodes using CircuitBreaker (payments fail when a few HTLCs are pending). If the attack is successful, having a lot of inbound liquidity from other nodes is key. The channel to the custodial service will quickly become unusable as we have stolen the liquidity to our side. Therefore, you want to desuturate it by circular rebalancing. Once we free up inbound liquidity from the custodial service, the channels to our liquidity providers will be saturated, we can chose to close those and move the profits on-chain or we could loop out (not sure which process is less costly: we are making free BTC, does it even matter?)

That's old news from last year. Already been addressed: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/pull/4527 https://github.com/lightningequipment/circuitbreaker

The nano shiller proceeds with more FUD: "Ya but LN has many security issues, there is the famous flood & loot attack, you should google it". What the nano shillers either don't know, or as I would expect from them, consciously omit is that we already have a sort of "firewall" for this attack and this problem has been fixed. I suspect consciously because they always claim bitcoin is not scalable when this is obviously false and they know that too.

Ah ok I misunderstood your question then. The third option is what i use also. For your 4th option take a look at https://github.com/lightningequipment/circuitbreaker where an hold fee for an htlc was discussed. The base fee part could probably be used as you suggest as fourth option but I do not think something like this is implemented anywhere yet.

1) Flood & Loot attacks have been fixed. Source 1 & Source 2.

And here https://github.com/lightningequipment/circuitbreaker