Many people currently view Bitcoin negatively because too few users practice proper self-custody. I fully agree that this is a real issue and it is something we need to address.

I want to highlight a positive development in this area by sharing a project I have been following for the past few years. I am not involved in it, but I believe it deserves much more attention.

The team is building trustless swaps between Ethereum and Bitcoin, aiming to extend the Lightning Network model across multiple blockchains through what they call the Lithium Network.

The idea is simple. The Lightning Network can be linked to the Lithium Network, enabling off-chain swaps between stablecoins such as USDT on Ethereum or any EVM chain and native Lightning BTC. No centralized custody is required, and users remain in full control of their wallets at all times. The only centralized element is the orderbook used for matching swaps, and the long-term plan is to have multiple independent orderbook providers competing with each other.

In other words, this approach enables fast cross-chain, self-custodial, off-chain swaps between EVM assets and Lightning.

One of the most exciting aspects is that it already works. It is currently live on testnet and open for anyone to try.

I find this approach extremely promising, especially as a way to increase self-custody adoption while still giving users access to the stablecoins and assets they rely on. If the future includes widespread stablecoin usage, a decentralized mechanism that connects those assets to Bitcoin could become a major breakthrough. I am curious to hear what others think.

Link to the documentation are included below.

https://docs.hydranet.ai/welcome

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I had a feeling from the beginning you were using the words "proper self-custody" wrong and this would be some lightning bullshit

There was no real sign, it's just pattern recognition from how many lightning cultists are on nostr. This gets so exhausting

Of course the goal isn’t to save money on Lightning, but the point that people somehow need a way to actually get to their bitcoin is absolutely real. And if we don’t have a solid solution for the on- or off-ramp, then none of this matters, especially if those ramps end up being centralized.

That’s why Lightning is a good and reliable option: It solves this in a cheap, fast way, with minimal trust.

Read the documentation. It’s a genuinely unique approach to solving the trust issues involved in swaps.

I feel better now that I see you're not just a spammer, but I feel the solution for the self-custody issue is to get people off lightning entirely

I understand what you mean. However, I believe that when Lightning is used properly, it offers significant advantages. The crucial point is that as many people as possible run their own Lightning nodes instead of relying on custodial solutions.

Problem with that is basically "your own lightning node" is just a euphemism for a server you control, it's not actual self custody

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?

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

True, fair point