An alternative take would be that this situation exemplifies the lack of non-custodial LN wallets which are user friendly enough for mass adoption, as if such things existed you would be recommending these to your community instead of the likes of ZBD. Question: if non-custodial LN wallets suitable for mass adoption are still not available, will they ever be? If not, is it perhaps time to explore alternative solutions for user-friendly self custodial micropayment solutions?
Discussion
Actually, I recommend a list of ln wallets, ranging from zbd to phoenix and zeus, while always explaining the differences between them. Two wallets removed were muun and now zbd.
Since eclair, imo, phoenix is currently headed in the best direction for non-custodial mainstream adoption, but it is not there yet.
One thing I tell people is that since the best ux and service wallets are custodial, never accumulate a large sum using them. It is part of the hygiene (or good habit) to split or transfer the funds from custodial wallets to non-custodial wallets regularly.
I'm always trying and testing new things in my show, but for the micro-donations I receive and for the giveaways I do every day, ln is the best solution so far (yet).
That is great, thanks for engaging. You sound like a diligent show host giving out balanced advice. However, whatever the ongoing developments on Lighting Network, I am interested in the possibility that a well-chosen L1 + #Bitcoin may be more feasible to implement high levels of Satoshiness whilst still being suitable for mass adoption.
I'm on the same boat. The original path is the best way and L1 is sovereign!
I'm working with the tools we have available now and expecting more progress. Fingers crossed.
Although this is what I want to hear, forgive me that I am sceptical that anyone on this #Bitcoin only platform could be in the same boat! Also, even if you are, let's acknowledge that countenancing the integration of another L1 into the space will need quite some curating.
More tools are already available, the L1 in question effectively presents to the #Bitcoin space as fait accompli. The idea is zapping with a fast & cheap self-custodial L1, plus having the means to easily swap to & from self-custodial #Bitcoin.
Obviously, this is the main bee in my bonnet, so we can leave there for now if you prefer?
Maybe you meant L2 instead of integration of another L1? Because I don't see any other L1 other than Bitcoin itself, and by doing self-custody there because of the original nature.
I see some paths progressing towards self-custody in L2 for the mainstream, but they are still far from reaching a trustless state and/or the mainstream.
Since phoenix seems to be making easier/seamless to swap between L1 <> L2, IMO they are a little ahead of the others.
Thanks, but I do indeed mean integration of another L1. My point is that if we rule out such a possibility, then we have closed off the exploration of another developmental path, and I don't see the logic for doing that, especially given that L2 solutions that tick all the boxes are still some way off.
Let's put it this way: if a candidate optimal L1 payment coin and ecosytem already existed, would we want to spend time investigating it?
I'm aware about integration with other L1s just through bridges (what I consider very vulnerable as an attack vector). What is your idea about it? is there any specific L1 that could solve the problem without another synthetic btc token? It is a legit question. I really don't know.
Have a look at this. The only update is that Nimiq wallet now supports NIM, BTC and USDC on Polygon (rather than ETH). You can swap in the wallet between the three up to a $1,000 monthly limit. Let me know what you think. https://finbold.com/review/nimiq-review/
I've read the whitepaper, and I'm not convinced. They're working on UX because they have funding from a foundation and are issuing a token. Of course, it's easier to do anything when you're a company that can hire people because you did a premine.
Another point is using the browser as a node. I'm pretty skeptical about this, and we have a bunch of examples like IPFS that show it won't work at scale for verification, at least not today. Maybe in the future, but not now.
Suggesting Bitcoin needs a middleman is a lie and unethical. People can choose to use a middleman, but they can also run everything themselves. And the tech is evolving to improve usability, like Phoenix, Zeus, Mutiny, etc. Soon we'll even have a Bitcoin Core mobile app.
Their integration with Bitcoin is just an app doing swaps. They don't work with the native BTC token either.
So, I really think they're just another project trying to gain traction in the market by misleading people about a problem that is not real.