Now I feel bad for running LND 😩
We have recently disabled the ability to zap nostr:npub1xnf02f60r9v0e5kty33a404dm79zr7z2eepyrk5gsq3m7pwvsz2sazlpr5 wallet users from Mutiny. You may still pay their invoices or LN addresses normally but a big problem we were seeing was force closed channels due to stuck payments to Zeus due to their work arounds with locked payments. Which harm both the user experience and other lightning nodes on the network.
Since nostr users are mostly unaware if they're zapping Zeus users or not, we are taking this step proactively to protect users from having a 10 sat zap costing them serious on chain channel closing (and reopening) fees.
The approach we are working on for solving lightning addresses on mobile wallets is a fedimint hybrid approach where the sats end up at a federation if you are offline but get swept to your self custodial channel when you come online. Payments will settle instantly with the federation and it won't lock up unnecessary HTLCs on the network.
Ideally we get the ability to do offline receives normally on LN but that future is looking really grim with LND's continued priorities on shitcoins instead of features, and offline receives depends on a network wide upgrade.
We petition Zeus to move to a more responsible node implementation like LDK unless their plan is to add shitcoins or break LN further.
Discussion
As you should be 🫡
😒🤣
for shame
I think stablecoins on lightning will be a nice stepping stone for people that want stables as most people's bills are fiat based. long term we won't need them. My main reason for not switching to CLN a year and a half ago when I ran a test CLN node is channel closings and reopenings. I just don't want to waste the sats.
that's fair. admittedly I am a complete novice when it comes to LN node running (only just stood up one in the past couple of months). I mainly base my CLN maximalism around a couple of things:
1. tech stack - CLN is C/Rust where LND is Go. tech stack flame wars are always fun and I've picked my side and it's oxidized.
2. focus - LND creators are focused on building a bridge to a failing system with stablecoins. conversely, it seems like those working the LDK/CLN side are building rails for the future.
3. I've just tangentally heard about more issues impacting those running LND nodes than any other. this could very well be bias due to volume of LND vs CLN on the network but my gut tells me otherwise (again, could be my tech stack bias mentioned in 1.)
both are needed. everything is good for bitcoin. we're winning. code is law of the future.
Rust is promoted by Mozilla and 90% of shitcoin projects are also working with or adopting it, so that is irrelevant. not to mention what a terrible design it has for memory management, for a minimal benefit compared to Go and a huge complexity in learning compared to C++.
the btcd/lnd codebase is a mess, and an embarrassment to any competent programmer. see my previous comment regarding the state of it, and my experiences with trying to contribute to it.
Sir. I am a <80IQ developer.
But what relevance does Mozilla have? Do you consider them a bad actor? How does that compare to golang origins? I am missing context for that statement.
Yes, LND runs on all my Sovran Pros. I will be investigating.
Same kinda.
Nah, imagine if there was only one LN implementation and only one group of people calling the shots. That would suck IMO. I'd rather see things get hashed out appropriately rather than steamrolled.