The recurring theme here is that Bitcoin and Lightning give us a spectrum of custody models and payment flows and different people select the point on that spectrum that best fits their needs. That is the beauty of the system. The capacity to choose rather than being forced into a one size fits all model is the strength.
The drive to insist on the most noncustodial and technically pure arrangement at all times overlooks the fact that economic activity is fundamentally about efficiency and trade offs. We combine goods into single transactions because it reduces friction and cost. We pay monthly for utilities not minute by minute because the administrative burden outweighs any potential benefit. Lightning allows streaming payments but that does not make it universally optimal.
The so called downzapping approach is essentially trying to force a demonstration of capability rather than solving a real economic problem. That might have some value as a proof of concept but the moment you try to impose it as the preferred default you are adding cost complexity and fragility to a process that is otherwise functioning well. The choice to bundle and periodically settle Lightning transactions into custodial or noncustodial environments is rational and consistent with how payments have evolved in every other system.
Custody in Bitcoin is not a moral ladder to be climbed endlessly toward purity. It is a set of tools that you use according to context scale and tolerance for risk and hassle. The fact that this flexibility exists is part of what makes Bitcoin both resilient and adaptable. If SN works well for you with periodic CC top ups and structured withdrawals then that is simply an example of using the system intelligently rather than evidence of ideological weakness.
The recurring theme here is that Bitcoin and Lightning give us a spectrum of custody models and payment flows and different people select the point on that spectrum that best fits their needs. That is the beauty of the system. The capacity to choose rather than being forced into a one size fits all model is the strength.
The drive to insist on the most noncustodial and technically pure arrangement at all times overlooks the fact that economic activity is fundamentally about efficiency and trade offs. We combine goods into single transactions because it reduces friction and cost. We pay monthly for utilities not minute by minute because the administrative burden outweighs any potential benefit. Lightning allows streaming payments but that does not make it universally optimal.
The so called downzapping approach is essentially trying to force a demonstration of capability rather than solving a real economic problem. That might have some value as a proof of concept but the moment you try to impose it as the preferred default you are adding cost complexity and fragility to a process that is otherwise functioning well. The choice to bundle and periodically settle Lightning transactions into custodial or noncustodial environments is rational and consistent with how payments have evolved in every other system.
Custody in Bitcoin is not a moral ladder to be climbed endlessly toward purity. It is a set of tools that you use according to context scale and tolerance for risk and hassle. The fact that this flexibility exists is part of what makes Bitcoin both resilient and adaptable. If SN works well for you with periodic CC top ups and structured withdrawals then that is simply an example of using the system intelligently rather than evidence of ideological weakness.