I saw this tweet reply about spark \ stacker news ~lightning

pull down to refresh

1816 sats \ 32 comments \ @h6j5dhc567g 1 Nov lightning

I saw this tweet linking to a podcast about spark and the reply I linked, very eloquently described the under the hood shenanigans that most noobs wouldn't understand yet

Some of you stackers have been warning about this for some time on here, especially Darth and Justin.

So when I visited the replier's page, they had Rizful on their profile, what's the stackers thoughts on them? I see them very active on Nostr.

view all related items

488 sats \ 12 replies \ @Scoresby 1 Nov

It's good to recall Bitstein's Everyone's a Scammer -- not because I particularly doubt what Megalithic is saying, but just because nobody is here "for the good of Bitcoin."

Spark sure seems to have a lot of corporate backing. And there pushing it everywhere. Yet, Bitcoin is an open monetary protocol. I welcome anyone building anything they possibly can that uses it.

People will build shit custodial systems and they will build cool self sovereign stuff. I see things like Spark in the same camp as the etfs. I'm not too interested, but some people are. It's an open system.

157 sats \ 7 replies \ @BlokchainB 1 Nov

This is a great point. People want to use something that works. This is how we all ended up in this fiat hell scape now. Using Bitcoin in 2025 can still be difficult for the average person. If companies are upfront about the trade-offs, then individuals should come to their own conclusions on whether they want to use that technology.

111 sats \ 6 replies \ @DarthCoin 1 Nov

Fine but don't lie or mislead users about what really is that network.- because is not "another L2 for Bitcoin", is just a scam, just another "corporate network" that will keep you enslaved inside. There is ONLY one L2 for Bitcoin and that is and will always be Lightning Network.

It's all about this

17 sats \ 5 replies \ @BlokchainB 1 Nov

I agree I don’t call anything layer two but lightning!

1090 sats \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin 1 Nov

Fun fact: 2 years ago I've created also a private corporate LN, for a small company. It was a testing pilot with a school.

I used LNbits and a bunch of simple LND private nodes. Only the company's node was connected with a single public channel to the rest of the public LN. But there were other 5 small private nodes, connected to each others with a private channel, using 0-conf trusted channels, that were never confirmed onchain, but working perfectly fine to send/receive sats between these private nodes.

Also LNbits was used for internal use between users in a school that didn't have to go out in the whole public LN.

And that could be easily expanded as a private LN bank, like a separate LN. All transactions are not even visible on any explorer or blockchain, those channels could stay forever open. This was an experiment of creating a bitcoin circular economy and how to use it. And wasn't even necessary of any liquidity management for basic users, not necessary to use any other bullshit Spark.

But yeah people are not willing to test these WORKING solutions, they just eat the shit posted by podcasters and complain that "LN is hard to use for average user..."

You as a long term bitcoiner have the duty to teach all these average users how to use it properly and help them building solutionns.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @hynek 2 Nov

Can I read somewhere more about this project?

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @BlokchainB 1 Nov

LN bits is so hard to use behind Tor did you do this with clearnet nodes?

54 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 1 Nov

Why in the hell you run a LNbits behind Tor ? You are not trusting yourself ? Only idiots do that. Tor is totally useless for LN. Read: #944885

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlokchainB 1 Nov

That’s the only way I tried to run it on start9. Most of these node in a boxes use tor by default

reply on another page

272 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 1 Nov

sure is an open system but that doesn't mean we should not be vigilant and call out what is not good for bitcoin. There are many other good custodial solutions that do not have such evil hidden plans. Are just custodial and people will treat them as such. The Spark / David Marcus plans ar far beyond to just be a custodial service or an additional network to Bitcoin. This is the mistake many bitcoiners are doing: they look only on the surface... until is too late.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby 1 Nov

You make a point that I want to agree with, but I also have this understanding of Bitcoin as a permission less system -- if it really is open, can anything be bad for it?

97 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 1 Nov

No, not anything is bad for bitcoin. I am a real example: I still use cowboy credits on SN ! A centralized custodial service like SN wallet filled with CCs is not bad for Bitcoin, as many think. If you use it for a specific thing, is OK. I could say that is beneficial for me because I do not have to spend my sats on SN. I got more sats in rewards (this is a flaw in SN system) without depositing / buying any CC.

Now comes the important question: have SN an evil plan with the CCs ? I don't think so and will be useless if they will have one.

Some centralized custodial services are bad and some are good and even could add some new good features out of bitcoin network. Important thing is that people can choose wisely and well informed.

Another example of a good centralized service: hosted channels. And HC are also open source and anybody can run it. Many noobs don't even know what they are. But hosted channels could fix a lot of issues for noobs, and even adding more privacy.

102 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 1 Nov

Yep, it's not a "threat" no more than someone offering to custody gold for you is a threat to gold. It might be a threat to the person that chooses this. Or rather a risk they may not be aware of. Or a tradeoff that is not well understood.

I don't think framing things as threats when they are really just tradeoffs is accurate or helpful to understanding bitcoin. There will always be scammers. We can't save people from their own choices and the consequences. But telling the truth and calling out deception is important

Your comparison to the ETFs is a great one. They are not a threat to bitcoin. Maybe they are to people but bitcoin does break because a company holds bitcoin on people's behalf. Those people are making a decision and that might work out for them. It might not.

When people talk like everything is a threat to bitcoin it makes me think why are they bitcoiners?

230 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 1 Nov

Rizful makes a cloud LN node that you can learn a lot from. Great resource, including the docs.

542 sats \ 11 replies \ @k00b 1 Nov

The Rizful guys keep mixing criticisms of SSP and SO which confuses things a lot.

With a 1-of-N trust assumption and privacy loss, Spark made it easier for wallets to add lightning in a way that obfuscates regulatory issues (allowing them to avoid kyc/aml for the time being) while giving customers of Spark unilateral exits (albeit kludgy ones from what I understand).

There are many damning points to be made about the trust assumptions and privacy loss, and I know how frustrating it is when people misdescribe system properties, but these companies are "selling out to the marcus family" because Spark trades things that most people don't care about for the handful of things people want; namely, they provide not very private offline-capable lightning sending/receiving with onchain UX, unilateral exits, without kyc/aml (at least so far), using a 1-of-N trust assumption.

To me, there's no mystery as to why wallet companies when faced with the three alternatives (ask their customers to think about channels, go custodial with kyc/aml, or use liquid which lacks unilateral exit) are turning to Spark.

442 sats \ 0 replies \ @rizful_com 1 Nov

"mixing criticisms of SSP and SO" -- sure, you could look microscopically at these definitions and try to untangle them......and I started down that road when I was looking into Spark, but then I had the realization that it didn't really matter....

What matters is so much more simple: To actually USE any of this, in ANY capacity, requires using an API that LightSpark solely controls, and has the unique power to invite others to (or censor others from.)

It's extremely simple.

Spark has GraphQL endpoints -- basically, a web server. You need to use those GraphQL endpoints to actually do anything. Your device has to make a network connection to LightSpark's computers. You have no alternative.

What is worrying is that many observers have somehow missed this very important fact, and now..... we are seeing that influencers (Stephan Livera, whose work I usually like, for one....) continue to muddy the waters by calling Spark an "L2" -- making it sound fancy and sophisticated, and maybe something that isn't just a website controlled by a company that does some stuff.

Spark is an API. It's completely unlike technology that Bitcoiners should be using -- Lightning, for one.

Spark is GREAT for what LightSpark is focusing most of its energy on right now -- gambling, tokens, memecoins, etc. None of those user care about decentralization or privacy, and honestly, if we can get some of these degens to pay for their gambling with Bitcoin instead of Solana or a credit card --- I have absolutely no problem with that.

But we all need to be very clear here: Spark is the OPPOSITE of decentralized -- it's fully controlled by one company, who has full surveillance (and censorship) powers on all transactions.

Spark is controlled by LightSpark, who spent, as far as I can tell, all of 2023 and 2024 claiming that it was a "compliance"-focused Lightning company... which enabled it to get Coinbase and other casinos on its client list.

The fact that now, an unsuspecting Wallet Of Satoshi user, will (quietly) have his data shared with LightSpark -- his transactions, his IP address -- everything. This is completely fucked up and never should have happened.

142 sats \ 9 replies \ @rizful_com 1 Nov

, there's no mystery as to why wallet companies when faced with the three alternatives (ask their customers to think about channels, go custodial with kyc/aml, or use liquid which lacks unilateral exit)

Sure, good point here. But there IS an alternative -- NWC. Any developer can use NWC, and users have choice of NWC providers -- right now at least 5+

It's simple, it's decentralized, it's powerful, and it's an OPEN and INTERCOMPATIBLE system that require NO PERMISSION to participate in.

ANYONE can (and will!) spin up a NWC service, and provide wallet services to the world.

What we need are more serious operators of NWC services, to expand that marketplace and provide more options.

142 sats \ 8 replies \ @k00b 1 Nov

But there IS an alternative -- NWC.

How would you build Breez's wallet with NWC? Where their customer:

holds the keys to their money
can unilaterally exit
can receive without the app open
can send without the app open
does not need to manage channels

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @rizful_com 2 Nov

Also, what's the point of Breez's wallet if it all stops working when the Breez API goes down? If you want that, just use PayPal!

112 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 2 Nov

I’m not telling you what I want. I’m trying to communicate what wallet customers want as indicated by what all these wallet companies are doing.

Their customers do want PayPal, but without KYC, and with unilateral exits. That’s my point.

If people want to run nodes and manage channels, why bother arguing about it? Spark will fail and NWC will replace Visa.

100 sats \ 5 replies \ @rizful_com 2 Nov

Alby Hub
"unilateral exit" is I think overblown -- to exit out of any wallet or service, withdraw your funds.... so much better than having to use Spark's API to move from their token into real money.. (and as you know, it's impossible with Spark for small amounts, making it basically useless.)
Any NWC service
Any NWC service
Most NWC services

100 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 2 Nov

Oh I was hoping it was obvious that I knew people can run nodes. I suspect there’s good reason Breez et al don’t ask their customers to do that, and instead are using liquid and spark swaps.

Why do you think they aren’t using NWC?

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @rizful_com 2 Nov

Breez is supposedly adding NWC... but I think companies like Spark and Breez are carefully AVOIDING open standards, because they (rightly) believe that locking companies and users into their ecosystem(s) will be a better business long-term -- and they're likely correct about this...

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 2 Nov

I respect that you think they're operating in bad faith. It's a good instinct to have.

afaict though their behavior is indistinguishable from a wallet company operating in good faith, trying to provide customers with an offline-capable mobile lightning wallet without customers having to run nodes, pay to run nodes, manage channels, or kyc.

222 sats \ 0 replies \ @roy 2 Nov

I built the open LSP standard he builds his products on. Our entire code base is completely open source. We provide multiple options with no vendor lock. I got Boltz to open source their stack. He's the one building custodial services. He's the one spreading, pushing his LSP services which has similar trade-offs to spark (which he clearly don't understand because he doesn't understand Lightning). Don't legitimize this behavior.

reply on another page

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 2 Nov

You were meant to provide one answer for all five requested properties.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @supratic 1 Nov

Just the body language of this guy tells me a lot.

Worth to note:

The companies that quietly sold out their users to LightSpark -- currently Breez, Joltz, Wallet Of Satoshi, Cake Wallet, Blitz, and more coming soon -- are allowing LightSpark COMPLETE visibility into both their user's transactions AND their user's IP addresses. This is just so dangerous.
— @megalithic

No sh... just details.

Wonder how much fiat liver a has been paid to host this interview on X?

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 1 Nov

#1265975 and nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzp9lcfzkucnrzwe59leyyym09v9yg0j99rtdqg6xwcu0m4yuzw2g3qqsdq0snzh0yvqlxyym67h4ta9gs0yehff6rr2852ldwsmsnxcfrfjq6lawcr and if you want a deep investigation read more here, this is the root: https://unlimitedhangout.com/2024/10/investigative-series/the-chain-of-command-how-facebooks-libra-bank-regulators-and-paypal-built-a-new-world-currency/ This is going so deep that you cannot imagine... And that's why you will see it everywhere shilled, to distract your attention from who and why they do this.

People can call me whatever they want but this is my warning: stay away from Spark.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @h6j5dhc567g OP 1 Nov

Seems Rizful actually pre empted my post by a day, weird af 😲

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @2053456d48 1 Nov

Wow seems interesting and confusing... We came alone and we leave alone. Between we just have some stories. Bitcoin story is nice.... Till someone keeps zapping my comment. Thank you SN and Bitcoin.

42 sats \ 1 reply \ @035736735e 1 Nov

Spark as implemented by Lightspark appears to invert that principle. If only they can run SSP nodes and they selectively decide which operators get added we are back to a permissioned system where power and visibility are centralized. Once you route every payment through infrastructure that is owned and operated by one organization you hand them the full packet metadata envelope ..

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 2 Nov

Also look at OpenSats that start funding all kind of wallet apps using Lightspark...