<p>In lightning network payments are onion routed.  The only thing a PSV could reveal is the previous and next hop, but they can not know the origin or the destination.  They know it came from Alice, and went to Bob, but they do not know where Alice may have gotten it from, or where Bob may send it to.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-15T14:47:35.953Z
So, do you mean onion routing in LN is mandatory? And does onion routing mean TOR network? If so, does it mean using TOR network in LN is mandatory? I also appreciate if you could share a reference/document explaining this process in more details. Thank you.
Questioner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-15T15:20:48.233Z
Yes, it is built into the spec, tor uses onion, but tor is not mandatory for lightning. https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md
404 not found
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-18T09:43:59.363Z
And concerning my second question: Is it **onion routing** which ensures performing payments through **secret** multiple hop routes ? Or we need to do something else to make the hopes **secret** ? Thank you
Questioner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-15T14:42:56.287Z
2019-02-15T14:42:56.287Z
404 not found
<p>A paper entitled: "Privacy in Bitcoin Transactions: New Challenges from Blockchain Scalability Solutions" has tried to investigate <strong>privacy</strong> issues of the Bitcoin influenced by the solutions for scalability of transaction throughput such that <strong>off-chain payment channels</strong>.</p>

<p>In this paper, we read:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Mixing services as described so far can be applied to standard
  bitcoin addresses and transactions but when <strong>off-chain payment
  channels are used, such mixing techniques cannot be applied in the
  same form</strong>. In <strong>off-chain</strong> payments, on one hand, users may be more
  restricted on the number of payment channels that they create (due to
  fee costs) but on the other hand, payments are processed with multiple
  hops through <strong>different Payment Service Providers</strong>, and such
  <strong>hops</strong> could remain <strong>secret</strong> since they take place in the off-chain payment network and there is <strong>no need to store them</strong>. So
  the natural idea to <strong>detach</strong> the link <strong>between source and
  destination</strong> in this scenario is to perform payments through <strong>secret
  multiple hop routes</strong>."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Of course, there is no need to store the intermediary hopes between source and destination. However, </p>

<p>(1) What happens if those <strong>Payment Service Providers</strong> decide to <strong>reveal</strong> the information of the payment ? (if they are able to do ?)</p>

<p>(2) How to perform payments through <strong>secret</strong> multiple hop routes ? Does it mean that we need to trust the intermediary hopes to keep them <strong>secret</strong> ? </p>

<privacy><payment><trust><micropaymentchannels><off-chain>
off-chain payment channels: Do we need to trust "Payment Service Providers"?
Questioner
# off-chain payment channels: Do we need to trust "Payment Service Providers"?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-02-15)

A paper entitled: "Privacy in Bitcoin Transactions: New Challenges from Blockchain Scalability Solutions" has tried to investigate **privacy** issues of the Bitcoin influenced by the solutions for scalability of transaction throughput such that **off-chain payment channels**.

In this paper, we read:

> "Mixing services as described so far can be applied to standard
> bitcoin addresses and transactions but when **off-chain payment
> channels are used, such mixing techniques cannot be applied in the
> same form**. In **off-chain** payments, on one hand, users may be more
> restricted on the number of payment channels that they create (due to
> fee costs) but on the other hand, payments are processed with multiple
> hops through **different Payment Service Providers**, and such
> **hops** could remain **secret** since they take place in the off-chain payment network and there is **no need to store them**. So
> the natural idea to **detach** the link **between source and
> destination** in this scenario is to perform payments through **secret
> multiple hop routes**."

Of course, there is no need to store the intermediary hopes between source and destination. However,

(1) What happens if those **Payment Service Providers** decide to **reveal** the information of the payment ? (if they are able to do ?)

(2) How to perform payments through **secret** multiple hop routes ? Does it mean that we need to trust the intermediary hopes to keep them **secret** ?

**Tags:** privacy, payment, trust, micropaymentchannels, off-chain


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-02-15. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

In lightning network payments are onion routed. The only thing a PSV could reveal is the previous and next hop, but they can not know the origin or the destination. They know it came from Alice, and went to Bob, but they do not know where Alice may have gotten it from, or where Bob may send it to.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: So, do you mean onion routing in LN is mandatory? And does onion routing mean TOR network? If so, does it mean using TOR network in LN is mandatory? I also appreciate if you could share a reference/document explaining this process in more details. Thank you.  
> **username_1**: Yes, it is built into the spec, tor uses onion, but tor is not mandatory for lightning. https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md  
> **username_0**: And concerning my second question: Is it **onion routing** which ensures performing payments through **secret** multiple hop routes ? Or we need to do something else to make the hopes **secret** ? Thank you  

---

