I get more annoyed by people who wanting to proudly do self-custody want to run things on their own and be in control but then angrily complain about channel closures by their peers.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I think this is a fundamental chasm in the implied meaning of "self-custody."

Funds? Yes. Payments? No.

…”but I want to be able to close the channel without your consent, but you must not close it. “

I hear you. I'm referring strictly to the base layer conception of self-custody, then applied to LN.

People want to own things. Don't hate them for it

I love them for that.

but I dislike that they don’t want to accept that in order for them to own things their peers also have to own things.

I hear it, I've been trying to figure it out for years. I'm feeling good about https://deposits.ynniv.com though. Let anyone who can do the work be an "LSP" for everyone who can't

Get better peers. If I get a channel closure I can reach out to the person to see what's up or it's some rando that opened a channel to me that I do t even care about.

I even have peers that let each other know when their nodes go offline.

yes, and I guess you also understand that it’s a mutual thing ;)

Sure do, these sats aren't going to flow on their own.