Nostr Web Client

Well, I am that user that tries to give developers an idea of what people want.

Basically its something like nostr:nprofile1qqsvwcwuwcwmucx3s7dfs54m49h7uclw4vxh8ygu25m9chk0ypy5ngspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzvuq35amnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wdaexzmn8v4cxjmrv9ejx2aseynfge or nostr:npub1tcnvkw8fu29zspw54tuhfrk0tkzn6qdupmc45slt4zmase3dzqask6ctu0 but with lightning and ecash.

I’m definitely willing to pay a 5-20€ fee per month, less if they offer a yearly subscription. Quality has a price.

The customer journey should be something like this:

1. User downloads the app, no registration needed. Its free to use forever, but limited to the custodial (ecash) version.

2. User can make as many free and instant transactions as they want. Again, ecash only.

3. After the user selects a payed plan, he should just provide an email address for the backup to be send to (obviously no kyc).

4. Now the app opens non custodial lightning channels. But I don’t want to be informed about it. The UX should stay exactly the same as it was before. (Don’t show my mints, don’t show how much I have in ecash and how much in lightning. No one cares. I just want to see how much bitcoin I have).

5. Ones the user has more than 1000€ in Bitcoin, it gets stored on a 2-3 multisig. 1 phone key, 1 hardware wallet, 1 app provider

In the settings I think users should be able to personalize a whole lot of things (like the amount of sats when it switches from ecash to lightning and from lightning to onchain) but for regular users it should not be visible right away.

Also I don’t want to be asked about how much transaction fees I want to pay. Obviously it should always be zero.

If fees apply the wallet provider should cover them (thats why I pay a monthly/yearly fee). But since most transactions will be ecash/lightning, that shouldn’t be an issue.

No one cares whats going on under the hood. What’s relevant is the amount of sats, a transaction history, and the send and receive functions.

FreeYoda 9mo ago

To be honest I never gave a paid service like you mention a thought.

Basically it is not needed for me.

I always had a HW wallet, and when LN came along I just added it to my payment options and now I do every #Bitcoin payment via LN.

Unfortunately #Bitcoin and LN cannot replace all my transactions/payments so I still have the fiat shit I have to maintain.

We are in this twilight zone where #Bitcoin is getting wider accepted, but our governments/banks abuse their power to make it hard for us to break free.

Especially the #Bitcoin to fiat is now under fire as that is a taxable event in many jurisdictions.

For me it means they are chasing me away, as I'm looking for more #Bitcoin friendly jurisdiction, but for a lot of people, not this far, it is a burden.

The other force could be better wallets and accepting.

In my jurisdiction paying in Bitcoin is not a taxable event.

But acceptance is dismal.

Interesting where this will be going.

Governments are going to lose this fight, but will cause a lot of damage before we are there.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Albert Frei 9mo ago

“When LN came along I just added it to my payment options” - this is exactly the problem. People can’t use all Bitcoin payment options in one wallet. They need one for cold storage, one for LN, one for ecash and so on.

Why not just combine all of them?

- Ecash has the best UX for beginners, instant and free onboarding and amazing privacy

-LN sucks with onboarding but after one gets over it (in the meantime they can use ecash) it can be used in a selfcustodial way.

-onchain is obviously best for long term saving

Combine those three and you get the best wallet currently possible.

FreeYoda 8mo ago

I'm absolutely not against combining the two in one (good) wallet.

Also I don't see a problem with the two separated.

I have my life savings on chain.

It is literally my own bank.

LN is my wallet, where I keep money for day to day expenses.

Why would you need to bring your own bank (saving account/ life savings) with you all the time ?

Plus the risk it adds if you make it that accessible all the time 🤔

Now I give it a thought, I will keep the two physically separated.

But a third layer in-between could be useful ?

Albert Frei 8mo ago

Well if you are your own bank it’s kind of ridiculous that this bank can’t even pay for a beer isn’t it?

A bank must be able to handle every type of transaction, big and small.

With Bitcoin we can do this using different technologies. We just need to put them together in one great app.

FreeYoda 8mo ago

That is absolutely ridiculous.

You are saying that you want an armored truck with armed guards every time you go shopping to transport your grocery money, just because you want it also to be able to move your life savings one or twice in your life.

Or that your car must be able to haul several tons of cargo because you move several times in your life so your car should be able to handle it.

See, life doesn't have to be hard and there doesn't need to be one solution for every problem, it can't be just because that one solution won't work for every problem.

Albert Frei 8mo ago

Every bank has an app that can handle both saving and spending accounts.

To me it would be ridiculous if they told me now that I need to use different apps for different amounts.

FreeYoda 8mo ago

That is because there is literally NO value in your beloved fiat banking system so it doesn't matter.

Start thinking for yourself !

Albert Frei 8mo ago

Lol, did you have a bad day? 😂