pull down to refresh
"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?
Did you read their website? Where does it say "we are a custodial lightning wallet?"
The only mention I find is this:
You always have the option of taking custody of your funds by withdrawing instantly at any time.
It's not exactly a clear statement that sats on CoinOS are not yours. All the other language is about lightning an d bitcoin and "final settlement"
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.
Exactly. @k00b should grow some balls and use noncustodial Lightning instead of partnering with custodial Spark to destroy Bitcoin.