pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @supertestnet 17 Jan freebie \ parent \ on: Hermes: A Noncustodial Lightning Address Messenger w/Fedimint lightning
Oh I see what you mean now. I think you are saying Hermes is non-custodial because they don't have your btc, fedimint does. Is that right?
If so, that doesn't make it non-custodial. Imagine if instead of using fedimint Hermes showed you a "deposit address" to coinbase. And then they said "You see, we are non-custodial because we don't have your btc, coinbase does."
If you tell users "non-custodial" when it's really all a frontend for a custodian's api, you're lying. Tell users the truth so that they are informed. They may be willing to trust that person or group with their money, but the wallet should definitely not lie about the trust model by calling itself non-custodial.
Not only is that true, but even if you fully trust the federation its still a useless distinction - lnurl, by definition, cannot be non-custodial. Its a single (HTTPS) server that can steal any and all payments to you. They can't take money after you have it, but its not a very interesting distinction IMO.
reply
lnurl, by definition, cannot be non-custodial
It can
You can run the server yourself, then it is self custodial
Senders can also validate the signature in the intended recipient's invoice to ensure it hasn't been swapped (I implemented something pretty similar to this for zaplocker, though I didn't go all the way) -- that also makes it self custodial