Interesting. If we think of LN, we have that: not only abili...

675b84fe75e216ab...

npub1vadcfln4ugt2h9ruwsuwu5vu5am4xaka7pw6m7axy79aqyhp6u5q9knuu7

hex

62b4e92d721a124eaa74b32cb9a9e373eb6ecea9339268b9b32d193ba8437086

nevent

nevent1qqsx9d8f94ep5yjw4f6txt9e483h86mwe65n8ynghxej6xfm4pphppsprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsxwkuyle67y94tj378gw8w2xw2wa6nwmwlqhddlwnz0z7sztsaw2qy0ygy6

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-03-04T17:38:26Z

↳ 回复 事件不存在

758b08e2d50465020aa3754f5c1f8e3ce34dfddfd8020328dbacdb61566ee819...

Interesting. If we think of LN, we have that: not only ability to withdraw, but also ability to maintain currently held funds, passively, can be violated even without 51% attack but merely through censorship by miners, or even pure unavailability or pricing out through fees > available balance. Hence someone put it in some pithy statement that I can't remember along the lines of "in Lightning censorship resistance is a security requirement" (meh I can't remember exactly but you get it). But then is that overlapping with a 51% attack, or not? I always thought of the latter as specifically referring to attempts to "undo" payments, so changing inclusion and/or ordering of txs. I think I'm trying to say that, with this definition, even LN doesn't count as an L2, does it?

原始 JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "62b4e92d721a124eaa74b32cb9a9e373eb6ecea9339268b9b32d193ba8437086",
  "pubkey": "675b84fe75e216ab947c7438ee519ca7775376ddf05dadfba6278bd012e1d728",
  "created_at": 1772645906,
  "tags": [
    [
      "alt",
      "A short note: Interesting. If we think of LN, we have that: not ..."
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "758b08e2d50465020aa3754f5c1f8e3ce34dfddfd8020328dbacdb61566ee819",
      "wss://nostr.mom/",
      "root",
      "2183e94758481d0f124fbd93c56ccaa45e7e545ceeb8d52848f98253f497b975"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "2183e94758481d0f124fbd93c56ccaa45e7e545ceeb8d52848f98253f497b975",
      "wss://relay.damus.io/"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "Interesting. If we think of LN, we have that: not only ability to withdraw, but also ability to maintain currently held funds, passively, can be violated even without 51% attack but merely through censorship by miners, or even pure unavailability or pricing out through fees \u003e available balance. Hence someone put it in some pithy statement that I can't remember along the lines of \"in Lightning censorship resistance is a security requirement\" (meh I can't remember exactly but you get it). But then is that overlapping with a 51% attack, or not? I always thought of the latter as specifically referring to attempts to \"undo\" payments, so changing inclusion and/or ordering of txs. I think I'm trying to say that, with this definition, even LN doesn't count as an L2, does it?",
  "sig": "ebe883ce4ebd1653e731619b21c2ec59f1cbe636bf757b1643abb1c7751078fab40adc6f1f16d3628c3227202524b3ed0ebf1bfc6491586f6d22175cf97892b7"
}