Thus the double edge, no responsibility means not maintaining channel balances to allow withdrawal, not giving sufficient warning by at first stopping deposits, and thus not considering the implications of offering a service like this in the first place. Best to avoiding situations like this by focusing on how to decentralise LN services.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

That may not have channel balance all the time. But, if they allow you to withdraw your balance within a few days, it should be cool

You can't demand a certain quality of service from a provider. If you don't like it, don't use it

Self custody is important. However, onboarding new users should be a bigger priority. Most people literally struggle to get hold of some sats ⚡ even if they're willing to pay for it

Fair enough, I can see why you would think that, and so do a lot of others, however I disagree. If self custody is difficult, then the solution is better protocols, improved UX, and more informative education; not using the crutch of centralised custodial services, which will ultimately lead to failure. This is why we have Bitcoin in the first place.

Yes, new tools with better UI will be required. Why can't custodial solutions be a part of the landscape while new tools are getting built?

It takes time and energy away from the more important tasks. Centralised services will continue to be developed thou, which ironically is something that Bitcoin allows as it permissionless.