This is a screenshot of a section of the text input box in jumble.social

Unlike you, I'm not lying about what the screenshot depicts, and it's actually possible for the screenshot to be what I say it is (because it is).

But I can recognize right now, in the first post I've ever included that screenshot in - the screenshot doesn't prove my point, and neither does my explanation. If you think it's impossible for there to be a text box in jumble.social then you're obviously not gonna be convinced by me posting a screenshot and saying that's what it is.

If there was no text input box in jumble.social and I was trying to convince you there is one, I might not want to admit this screenshot doesn't prove anything. I might post this screenshot just so that later, I can say I posted a screenshot as proof, while I'm accusing you of trying to make the thread more complicated.

On the other hand, if self-custodial lightning is possible, it's strange that I can't understand how your screenshot proves what you seem to think it does, and meanwhile you refuse to explain, while accusing me of trying to make the thread more complicated.

Wigit has very specific issues with a few things, and doesn't generally budge on them. Lightning is one of them, and ascii vs some other thing is another 🤷‍♂️

He likes monero though 🤭

Wasting your time here man

Projection again there. You're the one making the thread more complicated, not me.

I already asked how you are supposed to do this, and you keep hinting at answers instead of answering.

I've asked how anyone self-custodies lightning. You haven't answered.

You've implied the key would be handling channel closures without fees, or avoiding channel closures without fees, or pretending fees don't matter. I've asked how handling channel closures or avoiding channel closures can be ensured without fees, but you haven't answered, and you've continued hinting that the answer is to pretend fees don't matter.

This isn't me making the conversation more complicated. The conversation could have been simple if you answered my questions, or admitted when you don't have answers for them.

Projection again there. You're the one making the thread more complicated, not me.

I already asked how you are supposed to do this, and you keep hinting at answers instead of answering.

I've asked how anyone self-custodies lightning. You haven't answered.

You've implied the key would be handling channel closures without fees, or avoiding channel closures without fees, or pretending fees don't matter. I've asked how handling channel closures or avoiding channel closures can be ensured without fees, but you haven't answered, and you've continued hinting that the answer is to pretend fees don't matter.

This isn't me making the conversation more complicated. The conversation could have been simple if you answered my questions, or admitted when you don't have answers for them.

Kanzan defending lightning?! Well, just when I thought I'd seen it all

Your reply is incorrect. My above statements were correct.

Needing to pay miner fees for custody means it's not self custody.

Bitcoin's ability to be held without fees is a vital part of what makes it self-custodial.

You're projecting on me about your own need to rationalize doubling down on something you're ignoring (though perhaps not exactly ignorant about)

Paying a miner doesn't sound like a way to avoid fees

It sounds like you can't self custody lightning

If there is a way to self custody lightning, I'm still waiting to hear it - paying fees on a semi random schedule until you're out of sats isn't it

And how do you ensure you'll never pay a fee for that?

So how do you close the channel or avoid closing the channel without fees?

If you need an on-chain TX that charges a fee to do custody, it's not self-custody unless you are all the Bitcoin miners that your fees are going to

Again, that sounds like an on-chain transaction with a fee, but that can't be what you mean because that would mean it's not self-custody

Yes I understand what multisig is

But I'm just one party

My sats being shared with a second party wouldn't be self custody

I don't get what "either party" means but I definitely don't see how what you're saying would add up to me being able to receive coins at a lightning channel with a node that's not online

You're not making sense

You implied no online node is needed for lightning custody

This contradicts what I know about lightning so I asked you to clarify and your response doesn't seem to clarify

You're saying nobody can take or spend them without stealing your keys, but by my understanding, that must mean those coins are not on the lightning network, because you or someone else would have explained by now in this discussion or the many others I've had about it

But by all means, feel free to finally tell me what I'm missing if it exists and you've all just been refusing to say it this whole time

1. If there is no node running, where are the sats?

2. I have used lightning myself and found self custody seems to be a myth based on pretending you individually control the internet - pretty that's basically what I just said already

3. I didn't ask how many sats you have, putting more sats in third party custody doesn't make it self-custody

Putting your app's logo on a PNG that says it has self-custody doesn't make it true

I've never seen actual proof of someone self custodying Lightning, it's always just people pretending they run their own nodes while they're using a regular consumer-grade internet connection

Like what?

Not sure what drives you to deny the reality here but LN can't be self custodied and drives most users to fully third party custody by design, unlike Bitcoin

Not anymore, it's pretty widespread to implement it without Bitcoin now

See steak n shake for example

Pretending lightning is Bitcoin doesn't hit hard enough anymore, they have to pretend ecash is Bitcoin now too 😢

some people have a lower threshold for psychosis and shouldn't take LSD. not everyone should be doing what you do

It can't be children, I have six of them but they are all smaller than myself.

God

God

anon reply

Nobody cares about Monero

I remember those statements too.

Things might have changed. Time will tell.

Go to my profile -> About -> click my lightning address.

I was opposed to zaps for a while but not anymore. After the big refactoring it should be relatively easy to add it

I don't actually like any of their products but I'm ready to grap the popcorn when the maxis have an autistic meltdown about the monero integration

4) is a feature not a bug

Perfect

What’s your first priority when you wake up? Make your bed first? Coffee first? Read/meditate? Eat?

6055 days #sober

Send location?

I dont trust, I verify. Dox yourself then boomer. If you’ve really been buying since 2017 and still think Monero’s winning, you haven’t learned much. Congrats on buying early if true, shame about what you did with it haha

In currency wars, there can only be one winner. In a free and open market, money is a winner-take-all game, and the hardest money always wins. There is no second best. Because Bitcoin is the hardest money to ever exist, it will demolish all others eventually. This is because hard money represents truth, and truth always wins, eventually. Keep fighting the good fight, Anon.

#devotional