pull down to refresh

202 sats \ 5 replies \ @ek 3h \ parent \ on: Lots Of Riders Without Their Weapons meta
afaik the LN interface is as custodial as npubcash, i.e. you have no cryptographic / on-chain recourse when the LN channel fucks up?
So far, I have to agree. Before I went on vacation, I was looking into exactly this: how to get the presigned tx for unilateral exit when I fund my wallet via lightning, not on-chain.
Afaik, the only thing I get when I pay a lightning invoice is a LightningSendRequest. The transfer property ("leaves transfer after lightning payment was sent") might be related, but I haven't looked further into it.
This is currently blocking adding Spark to SN.
edit: Btw, I even wonder how Spark can stay trustodial via lightning. The sats must be going into some channel right? Isn't just one entity (not many) running the lightning node? Or did Spark find a way to "decentralize a lightning node"?
write
preview
100 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 3h
Why is it blocking? I count 16 custodial "wallets" in the list (though I may be off by a couple in either direction because thinking about these gives me headaches)
Re: edit
Or did Spark find a way to "decentralize a lightning node"?
Yeah that was my point above.
reply
100 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 3h
If there’s a way to unilaterally exit but we don’t provide it, and we don’t even store the state to provide it later, then we are to blame if stackers lose funds. If you lose funds using a custodial wallet, it’s not our fault.
Yeah that was my point above.
Ah, mhh, but for me these are two different points:
  1. Unilateral exit if the wallet is only ever funded via lightning
  2. How lightning is implemented to stay trustodial
reply
50 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 3h
You're right. So it's blocking because you need to know how to protect stackers, but regardless, there is still a single point of failure on every path (even if there are multiple paths, the failure is still singular within each path, and user mitigation is required to overcome it, which is as bad as custodial)
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 3h
there is still a single point of failure on every path
You mean not enough operators deleting the key and collaborating with previous owners?
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 3h
No i mean even if you run 600 LN gateways (iirc this is also the fedimint solution) then you still have to deal with a single gateway per payment.
reply