Are lightweight LN wallets vulnerable to transaction withholding? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Lightning node on a Bitcoin SPVLightweight client, bare necessitiesWhat is a block withholding attack?How vulnerable is bitcoin to quantum algorithms?Are Web Wallets Secure?Is Bitcoin vulnerable to a Birthday Attack against Private Keys?Is Lightning Network vulnerable to sybil attacks?Lightning network and lightweight clientsIs the statement that LN hot wallets will be less secure than non LN hot wallets correct?c-lightning & Lightweight nodes (no local bitcoind)Do lightweight wallets validate signatures? If not, why?

1960s short story making fun of James Bond-style spy fiction

What's the point in a preamp?

Loose spokes after only a few rides

Is it ethical to upload a automatically generated paper to a non peer-reviewed site as part of a larger research?

How to read αἱμύλιος or when to aspirate

Did the new image of black hole confirm the general theory of relativity?

What force causes entropy to increase?

Deal with toxic manager when you can't quit

Can a flute soloist sit?

Didn't get enough time to take a Coding Test - what to do now?

What do I do when my TA workload is more than expected?

"is" operation returns false even though two objects have same id

Is there a writing software that you can sort scenes like slides in PowerPoint?

Could an empire control the whole planet with today's comunication methods?

Do I have Disadvantage attacking with an off-hand weapon?

Was credit for the black hole image misappropriated?

how can a perfect fourth interval be considered either consonant or dissonant?

My body leaves; my core can stay

How did passengers keep warm on sail ships?

How to determine omitted units in a publication

What happens to a Warlock's expended Spell Slots when they gain a Level?

Why did Peik Lin say, "I'm not an animal"?

Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?

Example of compact Riemannian manifold with only one geodesic.



Are lightweight LN wallets vulnerable to transaction withholding?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Lightning node on a Bitcoin SPVLightweight client, bare necessitiesWhat is a block withholding attack?How vulnerable is bitcoin to quantum algorithms?Are Web Wallets Secure?Is Bitcoin vulnerable to a Birthday Attack against Private Keys?Is Lightning Network vulnerable to sybil attacks?Lightning network and lightweight clientsIs the statement that LN hot wallets will be less secure than non LN hot wallets correct?c-lightning & Lightweight nodes (no local bitcoind)Do lightweight wallets validate signatures? If not, why?










2















As far as I know, LN requires the user to watch the blockchain in order to perform penalty in time. However, running full node is probably a heavy burden to some users, especially to mobile phones. I once heard that improved protocol for lightweight wallet (like Neutrino) can solve this problem, but I also heard that such lightweight wallet protocol still implies trusting the full node or server which provides service. Especially, a malicious full node can hide transactions from its clients, which seems to be a potential threat to lightweight LN wallets.










share|improve this question


























    2















    As far as I know, LN requires the user to watch the blockchain in order to perform penalty in time. However, running full node is probably a heavy burden to some users, especially to mobile phones. I once heard that improved protocol for lightweight wallet (like Neutrino) can solve this problem, but I also heard that such lightweight wallet protocol still implies trusting the full node or server which provides service. Especially, a malicious full node can hide transactions from its clients, which seems to be a potential threat to lightweight LN wallets.










    share|improve this question
























      2












      2








      2


      1






      As far as I know, LN requires the user to watch the blockchain in order to perform penalty in time. However, running full node is probably a heavy burden to some users, especially to mobile phones. I once heard that improved protocol for lightweight wallet (like Neutrino) can solve this problem, but I also heard that such lightweight wallet protocol still implies trusting the full node or server which provides service. Especially, a malicious full node can hide transactions from its clients, which seems to be a potential threat to lightweight LN wallets.










      share|improve this question














      As far as I know, LN requires the user to watch the blockchain in order to perform penalty in time. However, running full node is probably a heavy burden to some users, especially to mobile phones. I once heard that improved protocol for lightweight wallet (like Neutrino) can solve this problem, but I also heard that such lightweight wallet protocol still implies trusting the full node or server which provides service. Especially, a malicious full node can hide transactions from its clients, which seems to be a potential threat to lightweight LN wallets.







      security lightning-network thin-clients






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Mar 24 at 10:24









      Chris ChenChris Chen

      1488




      1488




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          11














          There is no substitute in terms of security and trust for running a full node.



          There are different "lightweight client" concepts. Some of them are...



          BIP37 (bloom filter):



          • [minus] With current used false-positive rates, peers may learn all wallet addresses

          • [minus] Usually done over an unencrypted channel (p2p 8333), ISPs, etc. learn also all your addresses

          • [plus] client can validate if the transaction(s) were in a block (merkleblock)

          • [plus] clients keep a blockchain with headers only can at least check PoW

          • [plus] uses only little bandwidth

          • [minus] Hiding back transactions are possible

          • [plus]"Impossible" to fake a transaction

          Neutrino (Compact Block Filters BIP158):



          • [plus] fewer privacy implications then BIP37 since filtering happens locally

          • [minus] needs more resources (basic filters from the genesis block up to block 560000 require ~3.5GB space/bandwidth)

          • [minus] more bandwidth consumption because full blocks must be downloaded (rather then Merkle-"blocks" in BIP37)

          • [minus] Hiding back transactions are still possible (though more complicated) because the block filters are not committed to the blocks (would require a soft-fork). Not committed means, peers can fake filters and make you miss relevant transactions (can be [partially] mitigated by comparing filters from different peers)

          • [minus] No solution for mempool filtering (can't show "incoming transactions" reliable)

          • [plus] "Impossible" to fake a transaction

          Centralized Validation (Bitpay, Samourai, etc.)



          • [minus] Full trust in the company/server (they know all your addresses)

          • [minus] Can hide back transactions

          • [minus] Can artificially create transactions

          • [plus] Minimal bandwidth consumption


          Some application mix different approaches (like Electrum does Merkle-tree checks and keeps a headers-only-chain to mitigate the "can artificially create transactions" problem).



          Conclusion



          If you want to watch the blockchain without trusted third parties, you must run a full node (could be pruned though <10GB space requirement, but lightning implementations are not fully compatible yet).



          If (and only if) BIP158 block filters get committed (though a soft fork, hash in blocks coinbase of similar), hiding transactions through peers, providing filters, would no longer be possible.



          Recommended practical approach



          • Buy a tiny computer (Raspberry, Odroid, Pine64)

          • Buy a >500GB SSD (USB3 SSD, ~100USD in 2019)

            • NO,.. don't use your old HDD (your sync time will be 20 times slower).


          • Install Bitcoin Core (there are pre-build ARM64 binaries)

          • Run with a large -dbcache (if you have 2GB+ RAM)

          • Sync the chain

          • zzzZZZ (takes maybe a week)

          • enjoy being a real Bitcoiner (by avoiding all trusted third parties)





          share|improve this answer

























          • I wouldn't say it's impossible to withhold transactions in neutrino, at least in its current implementation.

            – Anonymous
            Mar 24 at 11:35











          • Depending on where you get your filters from, if from the p2p network, someone could intercept traffic (MITM) and hand you out "void" filters... but its not easy since maybe BIP157 is in use and clients keep a filters-chain.

            – Jonas Schnelli
            Mar 24 at 11:41












          • The current implementations are very dumb. It has the ability to do better in the future, but for the moment it's about on par with bip37 in that respect.

            – Anonymous
            Mar 24 at 12:22











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "308"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f85557%2fare-lightweight-ln-wallets-vulnerable-to-transaction-withholding%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          11














          There is no substitute in terms of security and trust for running a full node.



          There are different "lightweight client" concepts. Some of them are...



          BIP37 (bloom filter):



          • [minus] With current used false-positive rates, peers may learn all wallet addresses

          • [minus] Usually done over an unencrypted channel (p2p 8333), ISPs, etc. learn also all your addresses

          • [plus] client can validate if the transaction(s) were in a block (merkleblock)

          • [plus] clients keep a blockchain with headers only can at least check PoW

          • [plus] uses only little bandwidth

          • [minus] Hiding back transactions are possible

          • [plus]"Impossible" to fake a transaction

          Neutrino (Compact Block Filters BIP158):



          • [plus] fewer privacy implications then BIP37 since filtering happens locally

          • [minus] needs more resources (basic filters from the genesis block up to block 560000 require ~3.5GB space/bandwidth)

          • [minus] more bandwidth consumption because full blocks must be downloaded (rather then Merkle-"blocks" in BIP37)

          • [minus] Hiding back transactions are still possible (though more complicated) because the block filters are not committed to the blocks (would require a soft-fork). Not committed means, peers can fake filters and make you miss relevant transactions (can be [partially] mitigated by comparing filters from different peers)

          • [minus] No solution for mempool filtering (can't show "incoming transactions" reliable)

          • [plus] "Impossible" to fake a transaction

          Centralized Validation (Bitpay, Samourai, etc.)



          • [minus] Full trust in the company/server (they know all your addresses)

          • [minus] Can hide back transactions

          • [minus] Can artificially create transactions

          • [plus] Minimal bandwidth consumption


          Some application mix different approaches (like Electrum does Merkle-tree checks and keeps a headers-only-chain to mitigate the "can artificially create transactions" problem).



          Conclusion



          If you want to watch the blockchain without trusted third parties, you must run a full node (could be pruned though <10GB space requirement, but lightning implementations are not fully compatible yet).



          If (and only if) BIP158 block filters get committed (though a soft fork, hash in blocks coinbase of similar), hiding transactions through peers, providing filters, would no longer be possible.



          Recommended practical approach



          • Buy a tiny computer (Raspberry, Odroid, Pine64)

          • Buy a >500GB SSD (USB3 SSD, ~100USD in 2019)

            • NO,.. don't use your old HDD (your sync time will be 20 times slower).


          • Install Bitcoin Core (there are pre-build ARM64 binaries)

          • Run with a large -dbcache (if you have 2GB+ RAM)

          • Sync the chain

          • zzzZZZ (takes maybe a week)

          • enjoy being a real Bitcoiner (by avoiding all trusted third parties)





          share|improve this answer

























          • I wouldn't say it's impossible to withhold transactions in neutrino, at least in its current implementation.

            – Anonymous
            Mar 24 at 11:35











          • Depending on where you get your filters from, if from the p2p network, someone could intercept traffic (MITM) and hand you out "void" filters... but its not easy since maybe BIP157 is in use and clients keep a filters-chain.

            – Jonas Schnelli
            Mar 24 at 11:41












          • The current implementations are very dumb. It has the ability to do better in the future, but for the moment it's about on par with bip37 in that respect.

            – Anonymous
            Mar 24 at 12:22















          11














          There is no substitute in terms of security and trust for running a full node.



          There are different "lightweight client" concepts. Some of them are...



          BIP37 (bloom filter):



          • [minus] With current used false-positive rates, peers may learn all wallet addresses

          • [minus] Usually done over an unencrypted channel (p2p 8333), ISPs, etc. learn also all your addresses

          • [plus] client can validate if the transaction(s) were in a block (merkleblock)

          • [plus] clients keep a blockchain with headers only can at least check PoW

          • [plus] uses only little bandwidth

          • [minus] Hiding back transactions are possible

          • [plus]"Impossible" to fake a transaction

          Neutrino (Compact Block Filters BIP158):



          • [plus] fewer privacy implications then BIP37 since filtering happens locally

          • [minus] needs more resources (basic filters from the genesis block up to block 560000 require ~3.5GB space/bandwidth)

          • [minus] more bandwidth consumption because full blocks must be downloaded (rather then Merkle-"blocks" in BIP37)

          • [minus] Hiding back transactions are still possible (though more complicated) because the block filters are not committed to the blocks (would require a soft-fork). Not committed means, peers can fake filters and make you miss relevant transactions (can be [partially] mitigated by comparing filters from different peers)

          • [minus] No solution for mempool filtering (can't show "incoming transactions" reliable)

          • [plus] "Impossible" to fake a transaction

          Centralized Validation (Bitpay, Samourai, etc.)



          • [minus] Full trust in the company/server (they know all your addresses)

          • [minus] Can hide back transactions

          • [minus] Can artificially create transactions

          • [plus] Minimal bandwidth consumption


          Some application mix different approaches (like Electrum does Merkle-tree checks and keeps a headers-only-chain to mitigate the "can artificially create transactions" problem).



          Conclusion



          If you want to watch the blockchain without trusted third parties, you must run a full node (could be pruned though <10GB space requirement, but lightning implementations are not fully compatible yet).



          If (and only if) BIP158 block filters get committed (though a soft fork, hash in blocks coinbase of similar), hiding transactions through peers, providing filters, would no longer be possible.



          Recommended practical approach



          • Buy a tiny computer (Raspberry, Odroid, Pine64)

          • Buy a >500GB SSD (USB3 SSD, ~100USD in 2019)

            • NO,.. don't use your old HDD (your sync time will be 20 times slower).


          • Install Bitcoin Core (there are pre-build ARM64 binaries)

          • Run with a large -dbcache (if you have 2GB+ RAM)

          • Sync the chain

          • zzzZZZ (takes maybe a week)

          • enjoy being a real Bitcoiner (by avoiding all trusted third parties)





          share|improve this answer

























          • I wouldn't say it's impossible to withhold transactions in neutrino, at least in its current implementation.

            – Anonymous
            Mar 24 at 11:35











          • Depending on where you get your filters from, if from the p2p network, someone could intercept traffic (MITM) and hand you out "void" filters... but its not easy since maybe BIP157 is in use and clients keep a filters-chain.

            – Jonas Schnelli
            Mar 24 at 11:41












          • The current implementations are very dumb. It has the ability to do better in the future, but for the moment it's about on par with bip37 in that respect.

            – Anonymous
            Mar 24 at 12:22













          11












          11








          11







          There is no substitute in terms of security and trust for running a full node.



          There are different "lightweight client" concepts. Some of them are...



          BIP37 (bloom filter):



          • [minus] With current used false-positive rates, peers may learn all wallet addresses

          • [minus] Usually done over an unencrypted channel (p2p 8333), ISPs, etc. learn also all your addresses

          • [plus] client can validate if the transaction(s) were in a block (merkleblock)

          • [plus] clients keep a blockchain with headers only can at least check PoW

          • [plus] uses only little bandwidth

          • [minus] Hiding back transactions are possible

          • [plus]"Impossible" to fake a transaction

          Neutrino (Compact Block Filters BIP158):



          • [plus] fewer privacy implications then BIP37 since filtering happens locally

          • [minus] needs more resources (basic filters from the genesis block up to block 560000 require ~3.5GB space/bandwidth)

          • [minus] more bandwidth consumption because full blocks must be downloaded (rather then Merkle-"blocks" in BIP37)

          • [minus] Hiding back transactions are still possible (though more complicated) because the block filters are not committed to the blocks (would require a soft-fork). Not committed means, peers can fake filters and make you miss relevant transactions (can be [partially] mitigated by comparing filters from different peers)

          • [minus] No solution for mempool filtering (can't show "incoming transactions" reliable)

          • [plus] "Impossible" to fake a transaction

          Centralized Validation (Bitpay, Samourai, etc.)



          • [minus] Full trust in the company/server (they know all your addresses)

          • [minus] Can hide back transactions

          • [minus] Can artificially create transactions

          • [plus] Minimal bandwidth consumption


          Some application mix different approaches (like Electrum does Merkle-tree checks and keeps a headers-only-chain to mitigate the "can artificially create transactions" problem).



          Conclusion



          If you want to watch the blockchain without trusted third parties, you must run a full node (could be pruned though <10GB space requirement, but lightning implementations are not fully compatible yet).



          If (and only if) BIP158 block filters get committed (though a soft fork, hash in blocks coinbase of similar), hiding transactions through peers, providing filters, would no longer be possible.



          Recommended practical approach



          • Buy a tiny computer (Raspberry, Odroid, Pine64)

          • Buy a >500GB SSD (USB3 SSD, ~100USD in 2019)

            • NO,.. don't use your old HDD (your sync time will be 20 times slower).


          • Install Bitcoin Core (there are pre-build ARM64 binaries)

          • Run with a large -dbcache (if you have 2GB+ RAM)

          • Sync the chain

          • zzzZZZ (takes maybe a week)

          • enjoy being a real Bitcoiner (by avoiding all trusted third parties)





          share|improve this answer















          There is no substitute in terms of security and trust for running a full node.



          There are different "lightweight client" concepts. Some of them are...



          BIP37 (bloom filter):



          • [minus] With current used false-positive rates, peers may learn all wallet addresses

          • [minus] Usually done over an unencrypted channel (p2p 8333), ISPs, etc. learn also all your addresses

          • [plus] client can validate if the transaction(s) were in a block (merkleblock)

          • [plus] clients keep a blockchain with headers only can at least check PoW

          • [plus] uses only little bandwidth

          • [minus] Hiding back transactions are possible

          • [plus]"Impossible" to fake a transaction

          Neutrino (Compact Block Filters BIP158):



          • [plus] fewer privacy implications then BIP37 since filtering happens locally

          • [minus] needs more resources (basic filters from the genesis block up to block 560000 require ~3.5GB space/bandwidth)

          • [minus] more bandwidth consumption because full blocks must be downloaded (rather then Merkle-"blocks" in BIP37)

          • [minus] Hiding back transactions are still possible (though more complicated) because the block filters are not committed to the blocks (would require a soft-fork). Not committed means, peers can fake filters and make you miss relevant transactions (can be [partially] mitigated by comparing filters from different peers)

          • [minus] No solution for mempool filtering (can't show "incoming transactions" reliable)

          • [plus] "Impossible" to fake a transaction

          Centralized Validation (Bitpay, Samourai, etc.)



          • [minus] Full trust in the company/server (they know all your addresses)

          • [minus] Can hide back transactions

          • [minus] Can artificially create transactions

          • [plus] Minimal bandwidth consumption


          Some application mix different approaches (like Electrum does Merkle-tree checks and keeps a headers-only-chain to mitigate the "can artificially create transactions" problem).



          Conclusion



          If you want to watch the blockchain without trusted third parties, you must run a full node (could be pruned though <10GB space requirement, but lightning implementations are not fully compatible yet).



          If (and only if) BIP158 block filters get committed (though a soft fork, hash in blocks coinbase of similar), hiding transactions through peers, providing filters, would no longer be possible.



          Recommended practical approach



          • Buy a tiny computer (Raspberry, Odroid, Pine64)

          • Buy a >500GB SSD (USB3 SSD, ~100USD in 2019)

            • NO,.. don't use your old HDD (your sync time will be 20 times slower).


          • Install Bitcoin Core (there are pre-build ARM64 binaries)

          • Run with a large -dbcache (if you have 2GB+ RAM)

          • Sync the chain

          • zzzZZZ (takes maybe a week)

          • enjoy being a real Bitcoiner (by avoiding all trusted third parties)






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Mar 24 at 14:11









          Community

          1




          1










          answered Mar 24 at 11:30









          Jonas SchnelliJonas Schnelli

          5,3501228




          5,3501228












          • I wouldn't say it's impossible to withhold transactions in neutrino, at least in its current implementation.

            – Anonymous
            Mar 24 at 11:35











          • Depending on where you get your filters from, if from the p2p network, someone could intercept traffic (MITM) and hand you out "void" filters... but its not easy since maybe BIP157 is in use and clients keep a filters-chain.

            – Jonas Schnelli
            Mar 24 at 11:41












          • The current implementations are very dumb. It has the ability to do better in the future, but for the moment it's about on par with bip37 in that respect.

            – Anonymous
            Mar 24 at 12:22

















          • I wouldn't say it's impossible to withhold transactions in neutrino, at least in its current implementation.

            – Anonymous
            Mar 24 at 11:35











          • Depending on where you get your filters from, if from the p2p network, someone could intercept traffic (MITM) and hand you out "void" filters... but its not easy since maybe BIP157 is in use and clients keep a filters-chain.

            – Jonas Schnelli
            Mar 24 at 11:41












          • The current implementations are very dumb. It has the ability to do better in the future, but for the moment it's about on par with bip37 in that respect.

            – Anonymous
            Mar 24 at 12:22
















          I wouldn't say it's impossible to withhold transactions in neutrino, at least in its current implementation.

          – Anonymous
          Mar 24 at 11:35





          I wouldn't say it's impossible to withhold transactions in neutrino, at least in its current implementation.

          – Anonymous
          Mar 24 at 11:35













          Depending on where you get your filters from, if from the p2p network, someone could intercept traffic (MITM) and hand you out "void" filters... but its not easy since maybe BIP157 is in use and clients keep a filters-chain.

          – Jonas Schnelli
          Mar 24 at 11:41






          Depending on where you get your filters from, if from the p2p network, someone could intercept traffic (MITM) and hand you out "void" filters... but its not easy since maybe BIP157 is in use and clients keep a filters-chain.

          – Jonas Schnelli
          Mar 24 at 11:41














          The current implementations are very dumb. It has the ability to do better in the future, but for the moment it's about on par with bip37 in that respect.

          – Anonymous
          Mar 24 at 12:22





          The current implementations are very dumb. It has the ability to do better in the future, but for the moment it's about on par with bip37 in that respect.

          – Anonymous
          Mar 24 at 12:22

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Bitcoin Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f85557%2fare-lightweight-ln-wallets-vulnerable-to-transaction-withholding%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          How should I support this large drywall patch? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?How do I cover large gaps in drywall?How do I keep drywall around a patch from crumbling?Can I glue a second layer of drywall?How to patch long strip on drywall?Large drywall patch: how to avoid bulging seams?Drywall Mesh Patch vs. Bulge? To remove or not to remove?How to fix this drywall job?Prep drywall before backsplashWhat's the best way to fix this horrible drywall patch job?Drywall patching using 3M Patch Plus Primer

          random experiment with two different functions on unit interval Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Random variable and probability space notionsRandom Walk with EdgesFinding functions where the increase over a random interval is Poisson distributedNumber of days until dayCan an observed event in fact be of zero probability?Unit random processmodels of coins and uniform distributionHow to get the number of successes given $n$ trials , probability $P$ and a random variable $X$Absorbing Markov chain in a computer. Is “almost every” turned into always convergence in computer executions?Stopped random walk is not uniformly integrable

          Lowndes Grove History Architecture References Navigation menu32°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661132°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661178002500"National Register Information System"Historic houses of South Carolina"Lowndes Grove""+32° 48' 6.00", −79° 57' 58.00""Lowndes Grove, Charleston County (260 St. Margaret St., Charleston)""Lowndes Grove"The Charleston ExpositionIt Happened in South Carolina"Lowndes Grove (House), Saint Margaret Street & Sixth Avenue, Charleston, Charleston County, SC(Photographs)"Plantations of the Carolina Low Countrye