ln-fee-siphoning VS Lightning-Network

There are various flaws that allow funds to be locked, for example (griefing attacks), along with flood and loot attacks, time dilation attacks, fee siphoning attacks, the list goes on...

Anyway, I shared some code and I named the repo "reckless withdrawals" (GitHub), but "Hungry Route" is much more attractive!

I'm sharing code to replicate my findings on GitHub Reckless-Withdrwals. So far, only LNMarkets, I will not share yet Bitfinex and Southxchange as I am not 100% confident that they are exploit proof after their fix.

The main problem in my mind with the Lightning network is that in order increase transaction speed, it is reducing the decentralization by requiring participants to trust the other network operators that they create channels with. For the lightning network to really scale to a global payment system, we would need large central hubs for the payments to route through and you would end up with a poor imitation of the centralized banking system that bitcoin is attempting to avoid.

This page is a good collection of issues and criticisms of LN: https://github.com/davidshares/Lightning-Network

Bitcoin specifically, transactions times and the layering, in essence the lightning network, has been a failure amid many embarrassing risks (some of which allowing for the possibility of a contract being intercepted). https://github.com/davidshares/Lightning-Network amounts to absolutely not being an effective currency system from the get go. An absolute waste of energy. Deflationary by design meaning a disincentive to sell baked into it. The volatile value means a completely undesirable means of exchange.

Lightning network is an off-chain L2 solution, not bitcoin. Also terribly unreliable and vulnerable: https://github.com/davidshares/Lightning-Network

The truth about the Lightning Network: https://github.com/davidshares/Lightning-Network

And I'm listing literally just a few issues. There's a more comprehensive list here.