pull down to refresh
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"
What's unclear about that statement?
This statement is more clear:
Also, you are being a little duplicitous here: be honest with yourself and ask is a new user who goes to sign up at CoinOS's website going to think that sats they receive are their own sats and real Bitcoin? I think the answer is yes for most people.
If someone uses an SQL wallet, its because they don't care.
If someone uses Spark, it's because they were lied to.
There's no reason to use a fake L2 over an SQL wallet. Zero. That lack of functionality over SQL is why the fake L2's lie in the first place.
I think the lies often extend to the "SQL wallets" too, they may be less obvious though. I've seen the same skewed pitches / comparisons here on SN re: those thing all the time as well.
Bottom line, much of the custodial crap out there, it be SQL or statechain or coordinated vtxos, will gladly ride "not your keys not your coin" and make up reasons[1] why the end result is allegedly the same as your p2wpkh address, and masking the underlying tradeoffs. It is never the same as your p2wpkh, not even for LN (though arguably, the exposure model in LN, and the deterrents to cheating on your counterparty, are unmatched.)
"you can immediately withdraw", "you can unilaterally exit", and so on, without mentioning the caveats. ↩
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.
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.