<p><strong>Is routing decentralized and trustless:</strong></p>

<p>Generally, yes. It uses sphinx onion-routing to prevent any peer along the way to know origin/destination of payment. </p>

<p>Also note that Information of channel balances can leak if routing attempts are used to probe liquidity along a route.</p>

<p>Routing is not robust against sybil attacks, as compromised nodes can determine routes by reconstructing path via payment_hash in the htlc output scripts.</p>

<p>It is, however, incumbent upon the channel operator to ensure the lightning implementation is always synced with a full-node. Only this way can it detect a cheating channel counter-party and broadcast a penalty transaction. <strong>Watchtowers may provide vigilance as a service but they are not trustless</strong></p>

<p><strong>Also, note that the lightning network is a separate p2p network.</strong></p>

<p>Discovering topology occurs with peers gossiping.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-30T10:14:46.530Z
Thank you , Could you please say that if "separate p2p network" causes a kind of centralization or trust-based? If you could introduce a reference/paper/website on explanation of "separate p2p network" it would be perfect. Thanks
Questioner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-30T10:19:09.143Z
I cant really say that because there are no guarantees of centralization nor decentralization. Some argue liquidity for channels is expensive so it will aggregate in the hands of exchanges/individuals with high BTC accumulated. So nodes with high channel count activity will tend to have more payments touted though them, there may be a centralization pressure, yes. However, same goes with mining pooling and large merchants on the Bitcoin network.
James C.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-30T10:20:33.327Z
You can say that Lightning is trustless in the sense that you can always penalize invalid channel closures (given you see them before the timeout).
James C.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-30T10:54:35.577Z
Thank you , And is there a good reference explaining the term of _"**separate** p2p network"_ ? Thanks again
Questioner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-30T10:59:52.423Z
Sorry this is a little heavy but checkout the peer chapter in the lightning protocol rfc: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc?files=1  Note that the lightning network “interfaces” with the Bitcoin network via Bitcoin transactions (open, commitments, close).
James C.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-30T11:06:16.830Z
Do you mean this one? : https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md
Questioner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-30T11:08:25.253Z
Thats the p2p messaging protocol, yup.
James C.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-30T11:27:14.410Z
Thanks , In this paper: (https://bit.ly/2RpuavY) it's claimed that: _"... belief is
that routing tables are necessary for large operators as for current Internet routing algorithms as BGP or Cjdns protocols. "_ AND: _"existence of a group of beacon nodes (even when selected randomly and renewed regularly) presents a threat to decentralization.  Indeed, even the global knowledge of the geometry of the network can be a vector of attack."_ Do you agree with this assertion? Thanks
Questioner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-30T11:29:33.460Z
Thats always the trade-off - a routing table via distributed hash table is slow, but decentralized. Central Beacons (even if somehow selected deterministically) are more performant, yet centralized.
James C.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-29T22:41:48.767Z
2018-11-29T22:41:48.767Z
James C.
<p>From the <a href="https://lightning.network/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bitcoin Lightning Network</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>it is possible to find a path across the network similar to routing
  packets on the internet.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Is routing approach of Bitcoin Lighning Network performed in a <strong>"decentralized"</strong> and <strong>"trust-less"</strong> manner ?</p>

<p>Also, the fact that in the Bitcoin network there is no <strong>routing table</strong> does not matter ?</p>

<lightning-network><decentralization><trust><lightning-routing>
Is routing approach of Bitcoin Lighning Network "decentralized" and "trust-less"?
Questioner
# Is routing approach of Bitcoin Lighning Network "decentralized" and "trust-less"?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-11-26)

From the [Bitcoin Lightning Network](https://lightning.network/):

> it is possible to find a path across the network similar to routing
> packets on the internet.

Is routing approach of Bitcoin Lighning Network performed in a **"decentralized"** and **"trust-less"** manner ?

Also, the fact that in the Bitcoin network there is no **routing table** does not matter ?

**Tags:** lightning-network, decentralization, trust, lightning-routing


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-11-29. Score: 1

**Is routing decentralized and trustless:**

Generally, yes. It uses sphinx onion-routing to prevent any peer along the way to know origin/destination of payment.

Also note that Information of channel balances can leak if routing attempts are used to probe liquidity along a route.

Routing is not robust against sybil attacks, as compromised nodes can determine routes by reconstructing path via payment\_hash in the htlc output scripts.

It is, however, incumbent upon the channel operator to ensure the lightning implementation is always synced with a full-node. Only this way can it detect a cheating channel counter-party and broadcast a penalty transaction. **Watchtowers may provide vigilance as a service but they are not trustless**

**Also, note that the lightning network is a separate p2p network.**

Discovering topology occurs with peers gossiping.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you , Could you please say that if "separate p2p network" causes a kind of centralization or trust-based? If you could introduce a reference/paper/website on explanation of "separate p2p network" it would be perfect. Thanks  
> **username_1**: I cant really say that because there are no guarantees of centralization nor decentralization. Some argue liquidity for channels is expensive so it will aggregate in the hands of exchanges/individuals with high BTC accumulated. So nodes with high channel count activity will tend to have more payments touted though them, there may be a centralization pressure, yes. However, same goes with mining pooling and large merchants on the Bitcoin network.  
> **username_1**: You can say that Lightning is trustless in the sense that you can always penalize invalid channel closures (given you see them before the timeout).  
> **username_0**: Thank you , And is there a good reference explaining the term of _"**separate** p2p network"_ ? Thanks again  
> **username_1**: Sorry this is a little heavy but checkout the peer chapter in the lightning protocol rfc: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc?files=1  Note that the lightning network “interfaces” with the Bitcoin network via Bitcoin transactions (open, commitments, close).  
> **username_0**: Do you mean this one? : https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md  
> **username_1**: Thats the p2p messaging protocol, yup.  
> **username_0**: Thanks , In this paper: (https://bit.ly/2RpuavY) it's claimed that: _"... belief is that routing tables are necessary for large operators as for current Internet routing algorithms as BGP or Cjdns protocols. "_ AND: _"existence of a group of beacon nodes (even when selected randomly and renewed regularly) presents a threat to decentralization.  Indeed, even the global knowledge of the geometry of the network can be a vector of attack."_ Do you agree with this assertion? Thanks  
> **username_1**: Thats always the trade-off - a routing table via distributed hash table is slow, but decentralized. Central Beacons (even if somehow selected deterministically) are more performant, yet centralized.  

---

