ln-fee-siphoning VS circuitbreaker

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.

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