Global Feed Post Login
Replying to Avatar Mischa

As far as I understand, self-custody means personally holding the private key that gives you access to your onchain bitcoins.

A Lightning node also holds private keys, but in addition it maintains the channel state, including the current balance of the channel. If your channel peer agrees to close the channel, both parties’ respective balances are settled back to their on-chain addresses.

In my view, on-chain self-custody and Lightning self-custody are essentially identical when it comes to overall network health. In both cases you hold your own keys and contribute to decentralization.

The key difference is the security model: the private key of a Lightning node must remain on a server that is always online, which makes it significantly more exposed.

Ultimately, though, it’s up to each individual to decide what level of risk and convenience they are comfortable with.

Or is any part of my understanding incorrect?

Avatar
🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit 1mo ago 💬 1

Your understanding is correct, but since you have to pay an on-chain fee for closing a lightning channel, it would slowly drain your balance over time.

With this design, you can't just be ready for free to send and receive transactions. Perfect for bankers

With Bitcoin, transactions cost money, but being ready for them is "free," meaning actual self custody

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Mischa 1mo ago

True, fair point

Thread collapsed