Many routing nodes charge north of 1%.
I’ve paid multiple times five-digit amount of sats in fees.
Again, this is not a problem, it’s something that the market fixes on its own (as opposed to onchain fees which is not clear how the fee market evolves)
I just dug around my outgoing transactions. WoS 0 fee on every single transaction (I clicked around the 100k+ outgoing).
Munn 172 sats on 500k send. To me this is negligible.
Curious to see what others have seen.
Muun is not Lightning; it’s synthetic LN.
Good to know
Does it matter? If I keep $25-100 of cash in my pocket which could be easily lost or stolen, but provides various conveniences that outweigh that risk of loss (relative to the individual) why wouldn’t a hot-custodial wallet not be just as good if not better because it supports use of BTC, provides convenience and supports usage/growth. Just use a wallet that supports the ethos and makes that risk-reward a positive EV long term.
I’m not making a distinction between custodial and self-custodial Lightning, I’m making a distinction between how Muun and other LN wallets work.
Muun doesn’t give you the same way of doing custodial LN since they don’t hold your funds, so they do a more “synthetic” version of LN (since you as a user never really have an LN balance)
Just want to acknowledge convenience and adoption will require trust models at the usage level. Self custodial multi-sig doesn’t make an espresso easy to buy. Have to have both and guide people to manage risk. Using both models simultaneously ultimately enforces the NYKNYC understanding IMO.
You are talking about an entirely different topic: you are talking about trust models.
My comment was entirely about the technical differences of implementation that makes the comparison of fees paid under that model different (we were talking about fees, not trust models).
Looking back that is fair. Wrong thread to start that convo.
