Tony on Nostr: I think you're forgetting the other side of the route. For one, that liquidity to ...

I think you're forgetting the other side of the route. For one, that liquidity to loop out has to be there. For two, the node on the other side of the attackers node is the one that now has to manage their risk. Sure, you're protecting yourself by not keeping funds on your side. But you're just offloading the responsibility to someone else. The liquidity on the network doesnt change and neither does the amount that an attacking node can possibly claim. Routing nodes don't lose balances or total capacity from someone routing through them.

What we really need is splicing but nobody seems to care about that when everyone just suggests proprietary loop out servers.