pull down to refresh
I am sure this "noncustodial" designation is needed only to avoid regulatory scrutiny.
Exactly. @k00b should grow some balls and use noncustodial Lightning instead of partnering with custodial Spark to destroy Bitcoin.
"Noncustodial lightning" - I think you mean "custodial."
SN already allows users to attach a host of different lightning wallets. Unfortunately, many users still seem to want something easier than running a node. So, many (most?) attach custodial services like CoinOS and Rizful. These services are fine, but they are certainly custodial.
If your concern with Spark is custodial, why didn't you express similar frustration with these other custodial services used by many stackers?
If your concern with Spark is not about it's custodial nature, why do you bring up self custody in your comment?
These services are fine, but they are certainly custodial.
Spark is a scam is because they claim to be NOT custodial, which is not fine.
Here are two custodial wallets, popular among stackers:
Do you see anything about custody? You have to read very carefully to even see that it's not your own Bitcoin.
If you look at Spark's website the language is largely the same:
Spark has gone out of their way to claim "self-custody" in their marketing material, which I agree is a bit of a stretch -- but I don't believe it is somehow worse than a custodial wallet that doesn't make it clear that they are holding your Bitcoin.
Spark has gone out of their way to claim "self-custody" in their marketing material, which I agree is a bit of a stretch
I think this, for many a bitcoiner, causes an extreme dislike for Spark. It's not just that they're not disclaiming custody upfront: there's been this entire narrative for a year or so now from many wallets that this is self-custodial, which it isn't. I'm sure you've read all the same discussions around this on SN that I have, so is it really surprising that there's negativity / fallout surrounding the introduction and prominence of this feature?
FWIW, I feel in varying degrees the same about the other two examples you mention.
Exactly. By allowing Spark to lie about the properties of their platform, it makes it difficult for ACTUAL noncustodial wallets that use ACTUAL Lightning to compete against them. Users won't know to switch from Spark to Lightning because they were told by Spark that they are already using Lightning.
Same goes for CoinOS, no?
Is CoinOS also a custodial wallet that is scamming their users by claiming to be noncustodial?
I am not expressing surprise, but I don't think that custodial wallets are better than Spark. A naive user who jumps into using CoinOS isn't going to be told by that platform that they don't actually hold sats, but rather IOUs. For that matter, the same is true for a user who starts using SN without knowing to attach a wallet: they can easily end up with CCs while believing that they have been receiving sats all along. Neither situation is very good.
It seems to me that @DarthCoin and @Kruw would have been happier if SN just [edit: re-] introduced a custodial wallet where SN holds all your sats -- and I do find that nonsensical.
I don't think custodial wallets are better than Spark either, but two wrongs don't make a right. Since there are still no good generic noncustodial solutions for connected wallets (there are low-tradeoff ones for LN in general though) there is not much anyone can do other than complain. Every solution with a liveness requirement has tradeoffs, which is why I won't bitch about it. I have no solution to this except for running an LND instance on a server and then wrapping it with some minimal NWC or CLINK integration, also on a server.
Personally, I think CCs a better tradeoff than Spark, but then, I'm not here to build me a stash of sats, so my perspective and requirements are probably very different from what the majority needs are.
It seems to me that @DarthCoin and @Kruw would have been happier if SN just introduced a custodial wallet where SN holds all your sats -- and I do find that nonsensical.
You already admitted this used to exist, but was removed in favor of CCs.
Adding Spark in SN is like making a fake ramen restaurant
Exactly! 😂 I don't think the problem is simply that Spark is a custodial service. People can choose custodial solutions if they understand the pros and cons, the problem is labeling something as “self-custody” and “Lightning” in a way that leads a new user to believe they have eliminated the trusted third party
this is on all their partners websites the “Self-custody” is their buzzword.
https://www.lightspark.com/news/spark/wallet-of-satoshi-is-now-live-on-spark-bringing-a-
Darth and Justin sahred a lot of content about the Spark problem here:
- The Chain Of Command: How Facebook's Libra, Bank Regulators, and PayPal Built A New World Currency
- The PayPal Presidency Pt. I: Biotech and Biosurveillance with Max Jones
- #1275977
I had to paste the links here without a tldr, anyway these materials are full of necessary details.
Non-custodial lightning exists only on the user's side. I.e. if we all run our own lightning nodes complete with lnurl/ln address/bolt12 to receive sats whenever, and NWC/CLINK to pay whenever. This would shrink userbase of Stacker News to a few dozen people.
I'm fine with a custodial wallet, too; it's temporary and for small amounts, who gives a shit?!
@DarthCoin and his NSA Handler do!
They don't want anyone actually using sats for MoE.
They just want you ENDLESSLY talking about it but not DOING IT.
you think about you but you do not think the implications on new SN users that will be fooled to fall into Spark trap...
A real bitcoiner will do all possible to protect noobs from scams, not pushing into them .
I suppose you would prefer that those newbies learn about Bitcoin on X, where the dominant conversation is about MSTR?
No. I prefer to not "offer" to these noobs any option to fall into scams. Simply avoiding them.
The newbies come to SN and then they get angry and feel betrayed when they find out that all the zaps they have been receiving aren't sats, just CCs because they didn't attach a wallet.
I have had to listen to that frustration a lot. It feels very shitty to explain that they can't actually withdraw their zaps.
Because the whole marketing presentations about SN are about "come to SN to earn sats". That is totally wrong.
When SN started it was perfectly fine. And no attached wallets. Now is just a trash platform.
When it started you could use the custodial wallet to spend sats.
Now, if you do not attach a wallet you receive CCs that can only be used on SN. This makes it quite a stretch to say such a thing is a zap or Bitcoin.
Calling SN a trash platform is weak. Whether you dislike Spark or dislike CCs, it is still the only place that is making people pay to post. Which wallet a person uses does not change that.
SN became trash in the moment were added custodial and spark wallet connections.
That attract assmilkers and low key posters because their focus is to get sats not to make a good comment or post.
Having custodial sats (CCs) in SN is not a big problem as long the user knows the risks. Exactly the same as with coinos or other custodial service.
For a platform as SN, custodial sats is working perfectly fine and nobody will complain.
The excuse about "money transmitting license" is very weak and lame.
I said before: If k00b is afraid of the taxman, just put everything in my name and I will deal with so called "authorities"...
Exactly the same as with coinos or other custodial service.
This isn't quite true. If I use a custodial wallet, I can still spend sats to other wallets whenever the custodial service lets me.
SN does not allow users to spend CCs anywhere but on SN.
This is a pretty big difference, and it is one that I have personally seen turn a great number of people away.
I explain them that SN is this cool place where you pay to post and you can get zapped. They sign up and receive some sats, but when they try to withdraw they can't. So then I have to explain to them that they should have attached a wallet. And they feel that I have tricked them.
This becomes even more complicated if I try to get them to attach a wallet before they do anything else on SN. I even made a twenty slide guide to attaching a wallet and getting setup on SN. It still only resulted in them having a custodial account on CoinOS.
It feels to me like many of us are so familiar with these problems that we don't see them anymore. But to a new user, this is not a very good experience.
Fair point! CCs are scams, more than Spark internal wallet can ever be. I had my external wallet attached since forever, but my posts earn mostly CCs. Nostr is way more fair for noobs.
@DarthCoin wants SNs to remain an ivory tower of purists- purists who do not actually use sats here they use CC shitcoins, but they wank on all day about how PURE they are LIVING ON THE BTC STANDARD ...even though they never use sats.
@DarthCoin is at best a sick joke- at worst an NSA agent seeking to stymie and undermine ACTUAL USE OF SATS BY THE MASSES.
@DarthCoin = Total ARSEMILKING HYPOCRITE
You are NOT a Real Bitcoiner!
You do not use sats here you forking HYPOCRITE!
You use CCs because you are too lazy to use real sats.
Stop bleating like a washer woman and go fork off.
How does this affect me, exactly? I withdraw sats to my own wallet via a lightning address, and deposit via NWC. I am sure this "noncustodial" designation is needed only to avoid regulatory scrutiny.