pull down to refresh

142 sats \ 9 replies \ @rizful_com 1 Nov \ parent \ on: I saw this tweet reply about spark lightning
, 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.
write
preview
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:
  1. holds the keys to their money
  2. can unilaterally exit
  3. can receive without the app open
  4. can send without the app open
  5. does not need to manage channels
reply
100 sats \ 5 replies \ @rizful_com 2 Nov
  1. Alby Hub
  2. "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.)
  3. Any NWC service
  4. Any NWC service
  5. Most NWC services
reply
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?
reply
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...
reply
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.
reply
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
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 2 Nov
You were meant to provide one answer for all five requested properties.
reply
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!
reply
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.
reply