The best part is that all the people that complain about this are using custodial lightning as their zappers šššš lmao
nostr:note1cdnmv4vh20fl6zl0dxcjfy253wjqj7fmhgz9q6fhe7rvev2gfsas3jn3f2
Discussion
š¤£š¤£š¤£š¤£š¤£
Very few people use non-custodial lightning. Even I, who am a big proponent of that, use Alby for these small zaps on Nostr. It's just way easier, and the amounts are so small. Tradeoffs. I use my lightning node for larger purchases when needed.
Same; even while running a LN node I use custodial lightning and sweep to my node regularly.
With nut zaps you can sweep the tokens IMMEDIATELY to your own lightning node: so have the best of both worlds; fast reliable zaps that cannot fail and you are only using the mint until you come online and sweep to your node.
Beats a HODL invoice too!
I really like that concept. I just started learning about Lightning, and it's going to take me a while to get comfortable enough to set up and run a LN node. I really like your new implementation for Zaps, and look forward to being able to use it. The only reason I set up my non-custodial LN with Speed was for use with Nostr, since I don't know any Bitcoiners.
I can imagine in future lightning implemeltations whnch have a cashu node built in, for the purpose of minting ecash tokens and sending them out as donations, to be redeemed later by the recipient.
One of the biggest advantage of lightning /ecash custodial to regular Fiat custodial is the ease and speed at which funds can be easily moved. Mints who attempt to rug users would be exposed quickly. Just as lightning has watch towers, I imagine something similar would exist for the vast majority of popular mints
Isnāt Lightning required to have pegs into and out of Bitcoin? I think theyāre saying that ecash has no such guarantees. And, arguably, there is incentive to become a fractional ecash mint.
Self-custody Lightning is tied to an on-chain UTXO, yes.
But a custodial Lightning provider could just as easily create āpaper satsā as an eCash mint could.
Bitcoin eCash doesnāt purport to solve everything. Itās still custodial,z many of t
Self-custody Lightning is tied to an on-chain UTXO, yes.
But a custodial Lightning provider could just as easily create āpaper satsā as an eCash mint could.
Bitcoin eCash doesnāt purport to solve everything. Itās still custodial,z many of t
Self-custody Lightning is tied to an on-chain UTXO, yes.
But a custodial Lightning provider could just as easily create āpaper satsā as an eCash mint could.
Bitcoin eCash doesnāt purport to solve everything. Itās still custodial, so a user can still get rugged and the Mint could still play paper games. Same incentives - and approximately the same risks - as a basic custodial Lightning wallet provider like Alby or WoS in this area. Gotta choose to trust a mint the same as youād choose to trust Alby etc.
But eCash offers a significantly better privacy schematic than a standard custodial Lightning wallet provider. Thatās the primary improvement over regular (custodial) Lightning.
It also can offer faster transactions and smoother UX in some cases, and the cryptography/tech (the little of it that I understand) is extremely cool.
Iāve got four kidsā¦..I lost custody of my nuts a while ago
šš I feel you brother. Mine are very well-cared for, in wifeyās possession. I trust her to keep āem safe š«”
If self-custodial lightning is not viable, then the only hope is sidechains.
Who said self-custodial Lightning is not viable?
Viable for what purpose in particular?
āThe only hopeā is a bit of a general/sweeping statement, which I tend to try and avoid. (I still make such statements, of course).
But in general, at least right now ā assuming weāre referring to the goal of Bitcoin sovereignty for a global population (which I think is usually the underlying question here) ā Iām of the mind that we donāt have the āsolutionā yet, if there is to be one primary, all-encompassing solution, which also may not be the case.
But Lightning, ARK, eCash, sidechains - itās all pretty cool and interesting and new and cutting edge. Perhaps none of them are ātheā solution. If there is *one* solution, it probably hasnāt been invented yet!
And just like the way that Bitcoin was discovered/created after decades of experimentation with other projects that solved different parts of the problem, I would expect that bringing self-custody sats to the masses will require the synthesis of various projects into something that checks all the boxes.
Also worth noting: Bitcoin successfully dis-intermediates central banks, and offers global citizens a currency with a monetary policy that canāt be fucked with by those banks or governments.
That is a HUGE gift to humanity.
If (and when) an era of digital free banking, using eCash or Lightning or something new, is then built on top of a Bitcoin standard, it will be a massive improvement to the lives of all people. The ābestā banks can publish verifiable proof-of-reserve. Or they can offer a transparent, fuckery-free fractional reserve model to those clients who wish to take on a bit more risk, in exchange for some interest (rewards), while other citizens will choose a simple and transparent custody model where they pay a small amount of fees (instead of being paid interest) to have a responsible third party protect their wealth. Humans - many humans - want this, and always will. The market will deliver it.
And for those of us who *donāt* want to rely on any third party for this service? Well, now, we finally have the tools and the means to do it the way we want to.
Freedom = (choice x privacy x autonomy) + confidence that the other factors will not be encroached upon
Or something like that.
You got me thinking šš«š¤š¤š«”
When I paid my tab last night, went to the bar with a queue of people waiting on paying by card, asked the barman what my tab was, fired off lightning payment and walked away leaving the queue looking at me confused. Barman just looked at them and said ābitcoinā. It works. It works well. None of those people came to ask me about it though.
Lightning and bitcoin work better and more efficiently than many peopleās brains from what I can see.
> Bitcoin successfully dis-intermediates central banks, and offers global citizens a currency with a monetary policy that canāt be fucked with by those banks or governments.
Assuming that bitcoiners donāt compromise with scaling solutions that nullify this benefit.
Drivechains allow for the kind of experimentation that you describe. Iām not even sure that there is one solution. Probably many for many use cases. The flexibility is needed. But the point is that you shouldnāt ever lose that core trait of dealing with real bitcoin.
Some of them use fiat too
Too true...