It seems like this makes a little sense. It gives the wrong impression to the user, imho. It is only an interface, but it actually does not hold any funds in it, so hardly a wallet. Any suggestoins what would be a better nomenclature?
I think is right to name as "wallet" a LN wallet. Why? Because LN is The Payment Network of Bitcoin. Bitcoin onchain on the other side is wrongful named wallet. Why? Because onchain is the Key Keeper, not the spender. I would name the onchain as "keychain store" and for LN, as "wallet" (from where you are spending).
reply
Interesting. I just think regular person will think the money is in the actual wallet which it is not, but I guess from usability perspective it would be the easiest to understand.
Keychain store is a bit of a tough word to understand. Perhaps a "private bank" :).
reply
Yes, you get me right, I just wanted to point that onchain is not the "spender" as many would think. It can be called whatever "keys..."
I usually call it - the 3 levels of stash:
  • onchain cold storage - your central bank, your vault, you almost never touch it
  • onchain cache - your commercial bank, where you do coin control, funds management (in/out to other levels), you node (public routing or not), uncle Jim bank if you like
  • LN channels / wallets - your spending pockets, just enough funds for daily, weekly spend, in multiple LN wallets
All is explained in my guides, like this ones: ₿itcoin - Be your own bank, think like a bank
reply
Thank you. Great article
reply
It is only an interface, but it actually does not hold any funds in it
A typical LN wallet would have a node behind it that does in fact hold the channel state, so the funds are in this sense inside the wallet. @DarthCoin is 100% correct that LN wallets are more of a wallet than on-chain "wallets".
reply
If it holds keys, it's a wallet, even if they're API keys.
reply
Putting physical keys into a physical wallet looks dumb though
reply