LNbits VS circuitbreaker

lnbits.com or getalby.com allow you to use BlueWallet lightning wallet interface. They are custodial, so you could always use a different custodial lightning wallet or a non-custodial one instead.

Or you can run a Lightning node on top, like LND or clightning to make instant payments with low fees. Then you can setup LNbits (https://github.com/lnbits/lnbits) on top and do all sorts of nice things with Lightning.

Details as an github issue: https://github.com/lnbits/lnbits/issues/1375

Very inexpensive to buy (or make yourself!) link and run of of LNBits software with LNUrlPoS extension

You can get it at https://shop.lnbits.com/ and easily run it with the open source lightning extension LnBits . It's awesome because it doesn't even have to be online to receive lightning or onchain payments.

LNBits v0.9.4 (Released: 23th September 2022) - https://github.com/lnbits/lnbits/tags

You can create a card that works with your own node with lnbits: https://github.com/lnbits/lnbits/tree/main/lnbits/extensions/boltcards

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