pull down to refresh
542 sats \ 11 replies \ @k00b 1 Nov \ on: I saw this tweet reply about spark lightning
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.
, 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.
reply
reply
- 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
reply
reply
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...
reply
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.
reply
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
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!
reply
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.
reply
"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.
reply