reply on: SN elects to go noncustodial on Nov. 5th

pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @LouisLoyaX 19 Oct \ on: SN elects to go noncustodial on Nov. 5th - FAQ & AMA meta

I have an idea to solve this. Replicate the Aqua Wallet model

It's non-custodial, you can still send and receive lightning payments but everything gets settled on a non-custodial liquid bitcoin wallet through submarine swaps.

This model is way more efficient than Muun because submarine fees are basically non-existent in Liquid.

Plus, zapping users to user without using confidential transactions is basically free.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 19 Oct

Liquid is a custodial shitcoin.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @nym 19 Oct

I wonder how the fees would compare. Would there be channel management required by the user?

3 sats \ 2 replies \ @LouisLoyaX 19 Oct

Not noticeable for zaps ( it can be sent from l-btc address to l-btc address at 0.1 satoshi/vByte )

Also not noticeable for withdrawing or depositing lightning since the submarine swap fees are too small to matter. It just feels like a regular lightning tx fee.

Samson Mow is behind Aqua Wallet and there's no need for channel management because the funds really get settles on bitcoin's sidechain L-BTC.

227 sats \ 1 reply \ @rblb 19 Oct

That would be around 100 sats in fee per zap. So, small zaps are not feasible with a liquid wallet, it could still have its use as fallback for larger transactions though (like paying for a territory, or receiving rewards maybe).

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nym 19 Oct

Good to know, thanks.