pull down to refresh

140 sats \ 5 replies \ @SimpleStacker 10h \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon

It actually doesn't make sense to me that send wallets take more work to attach.

Receiving requires always-on. Sending doesn't. Also, receiving requires inbound liquidity. Sending doesn't.

So, yeah, I don't understand why a sending wallet should be considered more difficult to attach; other than at first there were some bugs regarding permission levels, iirc.

write
preview
187 sats \ 4 replies \ @siggy47 10h

You raise good.points, but I think the send wallet settings are browser based and more susceptible to getting disconnected. I know it will happen to me if I clear my browser cache.

reply
88 sats \ 3 replies \ @SimpleStacker 10h

Ah, yeah it's definitely a permissions thing then. As always, security requires inconveniences. I wouldn't mind SN just going back to custodial wallets. We can't get a de minimis exemption to bitcoin transactions soon enough.

reply
63 sats \ 2 replies \ @siggy47 10h

I don't know. I really love the idea of attached wallets here. We are genuinely using the lightning network, IMO, though I know people disagree with me. Going back to custodial wallets would be disappointing.

reply
36 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 10h

IMO at the amounts and the transaction rates we're dealing with, it really just makes more sense. People would still be using lightning to deposit and withdraw real sats to their SN account.

reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 10h

The amounts are small, but trustlessness should count for something, no?

reply