398 sats \ 12 replies \ @andy OP 22 Sep 2023 \ parent \ on: What's your weakest definition of a self custodial lightning wallet? bitcoin
Continuing to build Distributed Charge and StaticWire with the same design goal of using your own node. However, I'm getting concerned with all the talk about "hosted and managed self custodial" nodes from others in the marketplace. It seems very misleading and I'd like to start some dialog against that, but first trying to gauge other peoples' opinion on the matter.
Distributed Charge is a fascinating idea. Let me know if you’d like some help making the website more mobile-friendly, would be glad to help
reply
You can find my contact information here: http://andyschroder.com/contact/ . Would be glad to hear from you on your ideas.
reply
I don't know this very well is quite new, but maybe worth looking into UTREEXO
https://thebitcoinmanual.com/articles/explain-utreexo/
reply
Would be an interesting use case if you can use Greenlight for that superb DC machine. Could simplify a lot the whole process to setup and you still keep control of the whole node.
I know is quite new but you know that bitcoiners are reckless.
Make a test, break things, learn.
The other aspect here is the liquidity. LSP. How you would manage that?
reply
The question is , do you really "keep full control of the whole node" with greenlight? You previously said that "for a minimalist setup to use neutrino". I'd argue that full control with greenlight is an exaggeration. What local validation do you actually do with greenlight? If you are just blindly signing things, do you really have control?
reply
I think apps using greenlight are supposed to run the client half of the validating lightning signer protocol, where they check all the important details of the transaction before signing.
reply
How do you check "all the important details" without reviewing public blockchain data? Seems like you might be able to check some stuff but not all.
reply
I'm actually not completely sure about that. I think the greenlight server provides some sorts of compressed proofs about the the transactions, but I don't know how it works exactly.
reply
Would be curious what kind of validation the user can actually do with greenlight if they don't connect to the bitcoin network. Also, if your auto-signer goes offline, it seems like you have the same problems of not running your own node.
I like the idea of VLS protocol for being able to physically separate your keys from your node, but when you are are using someone else's computer for your node, that's where things seem to break down.
reply
Indeed.
A btcd or bitcoin core + LND with neutrino could minimize the setup, if you really want to keep all on you.
Using Greenlight or trustedcoin from fiatjaf you will connect to a "trusted" validator, you are not in charge of that code base but you are still ok. You can change the validator any time you want, if that's the case.
In my opinion is OK to use Greenlight or trustedcoin for such scenario you want to use.
Again, depends how far you want to go with the whole "sovereignty" of your node.
reply
What do you mean by "you are not in charge of that code base but you are still ok"?
I think it's okay to use those services if you want to for sure, I think the main point of this thread and my poll is whether you can call that a "self custodial" lightning wallet or not. I don't think you can, and I think it's misleading to do so. I think another name should be created for these "blind signing" nodes. If we don't challenge the wording, the service providers will still keep calling them "self custodial" and continue to mislead people.
reply
yes there's a lot of confuse wording in all this, agreed.
code base = the core node blocks and stuff, version of the chain etc
reply