Nostr Web Client

What’s the deal with nostr:npub1ajlrwgfj4yerhqf7ady03h7wmtk2qr3gs7h3sxcx83k05yld36sswpzx3q and why does anyone like it?

I’ve personally seen two people in the past month attempt to pay a Lightning invoice with it and it failed both times. The worst part was it said the payment had completed on the sender’s side but the recipient never got paid. After the invoice expires, the sender eventually gets notified and the sats are returned to their wallet, but it can take 24 hours. Meanwhile, the merchant either loses a sale or the customer has to pay using another method while waiting for their automatic refund.

This is a frustrating experience both for retail customers and merchants, and it’s things like this that are going to kill Lightning adoption.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

J.erb 1y ago

I just sent 1000 sats from aqua to alby and I got a 320 sat fee. I’m not sure I like it much 😅

Mindaugas 1y ago

Why send it anyway and complain? I don't send when fees are unreasonable.

It is like eating the entire dish in a restaurant and then refusing to pay while complaining it was untasty.

J.erb 1y ago

I wanted to test the speed and reliability.

DevilishLemonBar 🦥⚡🏳️‍🌈 1y ago

That is odd, the fee for that should be a predictable and reproduceable 14ish sats per liquid utxo in the tx and boltz fee being 1 sat + routing fee from Boltz->Alby 🤔

J.erb 1y ago

I looked at the wrong transaction, it was actually 41 sats 🫠

DevilishLemonBar 🦥⚡🏳️‍🌈 1y ago

Makes sense then! :)

Mindaugas 1y ago

Never happened to me. But if it did to you in some case it is an improvement point, not a reason to write off the app completely and blame it for damaging the entire cause.

Some likeable people built it. That is how you choose the product when you don't know how to build it yourself.

The Daniel ⚡️ 1y ago

I write off things all the time when they don’t work. I don’t care how “likeable” anyone who created the product is. I have firsthand experience with two different merchants and customers and that’s a much more important factor in my decision-making process.

Mindaugas 1y ago

There are situations where I take the factor you prefer, too. But I was just answering your question why anybody likes it at all. Not saying there are no other factors.

Mindaugas 1y ago

Offtopic: people are always the most important everywhere. You are putting yourself at a disadvantage when you don't care in any way about any likeable people. Just saying the phrase "don't care if smb is likeable" is harsh and self harming. Not saying the product must be best or liked at all.

Sorry to pick on you, I don't mean to lecture you. I mean to lecture all the kids reading this.

The Daniel ⚡️ 1y ago

It’s not that I don’t care in any way. It’s that there are plenty of likeable people who have built shitty products. Ideally you get both, but in a situation where a high failure rate can have a potentially disastrous effect, likability alone won’t get you very far.

pup 1y ago

Fwiw, I like Aqua for consolidating small non-kyc amounts.

I don't want utxos under 2M sats, and I also want some form of privacy.

So I send my small chunks of non-kyc coin to Aqua where it's swapped into liquid, and then once I have enough sats, swap it back to L1 and move to cold storage.

This way the relationship between utxos in and utxos out is obfuscated, and I like to think it preserves some privacy, breaks the traceability for those I've acquired the sats from, and allows me to keep my utxo sizes responsible.

pup 1y ago

LBTC (L2) on Aqua is a good middle-ground between L1 and LN. It should not be considered equivalent to either.

DevilishLemonBar 🦥⚡🏳️‍🌈 1y ago

It uses Boltz Liquid<->LN swaps. It's essentially Muun except there is no unpredictable fee issues and/or subsidizing for turbo channels by being Liquid-first.

I think most issues will be around tiny LN payments not suitable for a Boltz swap or Boltz being unable to find a route to the receiver and this only being apparent to the sender (Aqua) after a while..

DevilishLemonBar 🦥⚡🏳️‍🌈 1y ago

On that matter; nostr:nprofile1qqswe03hyye2jv3msylwkj8cml8d4m9qpc5g0tccrvrrcm86z0kcaggpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtc9xqxg6 y'all should add more boltz swap providers like https://swap.diamondhands.technology/ and compare rates, go with cheapest, or randomly if the same fee for better censorship resistance and reliability :)

The Daniel ⚡️ 1y ago

If a Lightning payment doesn’t reach the receiver in a few seconds but it takes more than a few seconds (not to mention an hour or a day) for the funds to be returned and become spendable again, the entire process is broken and by extension it makes Lightning appear unusable.

DevilishLemonBar 🦥⚡🏳️‍🌈 1y ago

Fair enough. The minimum time for the payment is ~1/2mins since Liquid blocks are generated every minute and whatever Boltz takes to find a route.

I'm not sure what the timeout is but I can't imagine it being very long, so probably not getting into hours.

The downsides of swaps vs native LN... but comes with no inbound liquidity, FCs, and channel management nonsense + being fully insulated from onchain fee spikes 🤷‍♂️

DevilishLemonBar 🦥⚡🏳️‍🌈 1y ago

Actually from a quick test it looks like they don't even wait for a confirmation(?). My Aqua LN swap took less than 10 seconds.

The Daniel ⚡️ 1y ago

The problem is the unpredictability. In my real-world tests involving Aqua wallet users who tried to pay a Lightning invoice in a retail environment, I saw more than one instance of the payment failing to reach the destination, but on the sender’s side it showed as completed.

This causes a huge headache for both the sender and receiver. In an in-person setting such as a restaurant or store, this means a customer awkwardly waiting for up to an hour before the invoice fully times out with no indication of what went wrong during this entire time. As far as the customer is concerned, their payment was completed and their wallet balance is reduced. As far as the merchant is concerned, no payment was received and they then have to decide what to do next.

You can imagine how this will not scale for a commercial setting. A merchant can’t just say, “You can pay with Lightning, but not that particular way, because it’s unreliable.” This is a potential adoption nightmare.

₿logging₿itcoin 1y ago

I know a guy who uses Aqua Wallet to accept bitcoin at his brewery. We haven't seen these issues.

Have you tried Bull Bitcoin's wallet yet? It's similar to Aqua, but you can get your zpub and add it to BTCpayServer.

The Daniel ⚡️ 1y ago

No, I don’t think it’s available in the U.S.

₿logging₿itcoin 1y ago

It worked for me in California, but I forget New York has draconian bitcoin laws.

The Daniel ⚡️ 1y ago

Yeah, or you could say that New York really, really, really encourages self custody! 😅

₿logging₿itcoin 1y ago

🤣

Beiner 1y ago

Tbey probably cater to erc-20 tether tokens. They said they were focused more on usdt for central Americans 🤷🏽‍♀️🤷🏽‍♀️

That is my understanding of aqua

The Daniel ⚡️ 1y ago

Okay, but when someone with a huge following builds a broken product and everyone starts using it, you get nothing but trouble. Liquid wallets with atomic swaps are not Lightning wallets, and are unreliable and a net negative for retail adoption. In My Humble Opinion.

GregAsks 1y ago

This is shitcoin wallet...