Replying to Avatar Felix

At least there is no way to store funds for a prolonged time, this would make rugs a lot more attractive for the provider.

I think its a good functionality/safety tradeoff they made, probably the least amount of custody you can have while offering lightning escrow.
Avatar
Super Testnet 8mo ago

> At least there is no way to store funds for a prolonged time

There is, and it's pretty easy: the buyer can just give the coordinator an invoice that cannot be paid (e.g. because the node has no channels). I haven't tried this, but as I understand it, if the coordinator cannot pay your invoice, he just credits your robot's account an IOU representing the amount due to you. Then you can try withdrawing again later. So users *can* easily use Robosats as a custodian. It's just not a default behavior.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Super Testnet 8mo ago

Oops, I'm doing it again! By saying "It's just not a default behavior" I implicitly denied the very thing I'm trying to clarify: Robosats' model *is* custodial by default. It's just that they try to custody your funds *as briefly as they can* while still offering a decent UX. So if you're using robosats, you're definitely using a custodian, no two ways about it. It's just that if you use it the *intended* way, they only custody your funds for a few hours. Sometimes less.