lnd VS circuitbreaker

Install LND: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/docs/INSTALL.md#install-lnd Install Bitcoin Core: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/build-windows.md#building-with-mingw-w64-cross-tools

To be able to follow along, you must have both bitcoind and lnd installed.

If you want multiple users, you'll need multiple node instances. LNbits (mentioned by /u/sos755) does not implement this. Rather, it simply abstracts the funds associated with a single node into multiple logical accounts. This means that the node administrator still has underlying control of all funds associated with the node. See this GitHub discussion for a bit more info: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/issues/2652

LND doesn’t use BIP39 mnemonics. https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/aezeed/README.md

Both Bitcoin Core and LND have binaries available for macOS, for example. I have not seen an actual guide to set everything up on macOS tho. It's quite similar to Linux honestly.

As for taproot change addresses, this has been the default behaviour since version 0.15.5. Just update your lnd and you're all set.

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