pull down to refresh
No, it's not custodial for me because it is not a wallet for me. This is what you misunderstand. It's like a prepaid phone to me. I just put in some sats which I can only use (as CCs) and when its running low I put in more, which is 3-4x per week.
i think i get what you're saying, but fail to see why you wouldn't just load a custodial lightning wallet 3-4x per week. a rugpull can happen with sn and the ln wallet. what am i missing?
lol — i don't like them either. are you completely against banks as a principle?
how do you think bitcoin will scale without custodians?
are you completely against banks as a principle?
Yes. That's what Bitcoin is for. I quote:
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash SystemBitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution.
Note the following words:
- purely
- sent directly from one party to another
- without going through a financial institution.
So if I wanted to send you sats, as opposed to upzapping your content, I would not use SN. The territory owner takes 21% of each zap and 9% goes to rewards minus LN fees, so it is very costly to use SN to send someone sats. I know that there is the idea that it should support marketplaces (k00b confirmed that the other day), but because of the core value add of SN (community building) needing sybil resistance, it will unlikely ever be a good financial middleman.
Also, financial middlemen are against Bitcoin. I have a direct LN channel with SN for my topups (I have a dedicated embedded lnd for it, so it's fine really) I do not burden other people's liquidity with my transactions on SN. This is the most awesome thing, because that liquidity can now be used for meaningful things like a kid buying a sandwich. They need that sandwich more than you or I need assmilked sats from comments.
how do you think bitcoin will scale without custodians?
As it always has? Note that "people like me", who hate banks, governments and basically anyone trying to tell someone else what to do, generally don't believe in the Bitcoin Standard bullshit coming from Mr. Ammous. So it scaled fine, and it will scale fine in the future. LN has much more capacity than is used. All the panic over scaling is people trying to sell you something [fee]
like their custodial wallet, so that you pay them fees, whereas between SN and me, I pay 0 fees, and SN pays 0 fees too. Isn't the life of a self-custody maxi beautiful? ↩
to find truth through logic and reason i am not sure how helpful it is to look at a paper written in 2008. but let's go with that
- do you consider routing in ln purely p2p?
- is a ln node that routes payments a middlemen?
LN has much more capacity than is used
so we could assmilk and let the kid buy his sandwich
As it always has?
are you saying because bitcoin scaled in the past it will scale in the future?
you are describing the ideal scenario where you have a direct channel with sn, but i guess you agree, that this is not viable/practical for all sn users right?
to find truth through logic and reason i am not sure how helpful it is to look at a paper written in 2008.
Why not? That's Bitcoin.
- do you consider routing in ln purely p2p?
Routing is what makes it peer-through-peer, so correct, it is not pure p2p. I consider it a necessary evil for onion routing. I personally don't need onion routing per-se because I mix, but it's a welcome addition to the toolbox.
- is a ln node that routes payments a middlemen?
Technically, yes. It also extracts a fee for providing anonymization, so there is some value to be had. But yes, it's a middleman.
so we could assmilk and let the kid buy his sandwich
Yes, though capital efficiency is very bad right now. There was a nice video about it re-shared today (it's from October) #1407722
are you saying because bitcoin scaled in the past it will scale in the future?
No, I am saying that it has always scaled non-custodially and that any custodial solution is a lazy, and more often, deceitful solution. Like Udi saying his FTX reflink is the only way to scale Bitcoin.
you are describing the ideal scenario where you have a direct channel with sn, but i guess you agree, that this is not viable/practical for all sn users right?
I'm describing what I do, not an ideal scenario. Ideally I could buy credits from L1, and do it in a mix-out straight from a coinjoin. Everyone can find their own path to success though, I don't really care. Judgment is for dictators, not peers. So you let me buy CCs, I let you use a bank. I just hope you don't get rugged, and I hope you hope that I don't fuck up my keys.
Judgment is for dictators, not peers. So you let me buy CCs, I let you use a bank. I just hope you don't get rugged, and I hope you hope that I don't fuck up my keys.
i absolutely agree with this and i think it is a good end for the discussion
i hope it is clear, that i never had the intention to tell you what you should do. it was a genuine interest in your reasoning for doing what you're doing and i think i understand you much better now than before
it is also worth mentioning, that we probably agree on more than we disagree
And yet you admit that unless you use a custodial wallet like coinos you cannot conveniently attach a self custodial wallet to SNs.
So clearly self custodial wallets are not yet up to the task of frequent convenient and reliable low value P2P payments- but custodial ones are...so lets support them!
When I tell non BTC friends about how I can make these micro payments on SNs and Predyx they are genuinely impressed and interested- their fiat banks cannot manage such direct, low cost, frequent global payments- but BTC/LN can.
IMO SNs and Predyx are great gateways for more people to come and experience using sats P2P and if we can build a strong P2P culture on SNs using attached wallets it is advancing P2P BTC liquidity and adoption.
Hopefully eventually self custodial wallets will catch up but for people new to BTC or people like me who are not technically minded I suggest that using custodial for low value frequent use cases like SNs is appropriate and is supporting the develoment that needs to happen. Using CCs is just a cop out after all the work that SNs have gont to develop the wallet attachment functionality.
System grow and develop because people use them and die because they dont.
Let's us LN now and help it grow and develop.
You have not credibly refuted any of the points I make.
Emotion seems to cloud your judgement.
If we do not use LN it will not be funded via fees sufficiently to grow.
Coinos is an excellent wallet albiet custodial but I dont care because I want to be able to participate in the btc LN payments protocol and as you admit your self custodial wallets are not yet up to speed to provide that with any reliability.
Coinos has never lost any of my sats and it has provided me with the opportunity to use LN frequently and at extremely low fees. I support coinos because such wallets are essential at this stage of the development of of BTC/LN MOE p2p payments.
You can do as you please but you have not refuted ny of the main points I make in favour of attaching a wallet if your objective is greater strength and adoption of both LN and SNs and a circular btc economy...
I am now making dozens of BTC p2p payments via LN on SNs and Predyx and this I assert is helping develop and grow the reality of BTC MoE P2P payments.
You are boycotting such opportunities- ok that's fine, your choice, but realise you are choosing to not support the strengthening and development of the protocol.
i am sorry i misrepresented you, that was not my intention and i really thought you said cc = sats, but i didn't check, that is also probably why it didn't make any sense to me...
i guess we only disagree on the point of custodial lightning wallets. you prefer to use sn as a custodial for cc instead of a custodial ightning wallet for sats