Swaps should not be a norm in daily use of a BTC wallet.
Swaps should be used ONLY when you have a depleted channel. I do not think integrated swaps are an important feature and decisive to choose a wallet. Sometimes is even better if you use external swap services and just pay with that wallet.
The most idiotic thing! Swaps must be done in specific cases and user MUST be aware of it and what imply with.
Submarine swaps have costs and hiding those costs from the user could end up in a fucking disaster. Make the user aware of those costs and they will do it manually only when they are ready to pay the cost.
Wallets should focus more on how to make it easier for the user to manage liquidity, LSPs, 0-conf channels,, JiT channels, inbound renting etc and education about these things.
Do not make the user a dumb user, make it smart, knowledgeable and in that way none of the scammers could fool them. The "dumber" UI, more possible scams and getting rekt cases will be.
Check this example:
We do not want this to happen. That is the disaster...
Swaps must be done in specific cases and user MUST be aware of it and what imply with.
It's a use case, and most of users don't even know about channels.
The issue I see is allowing users to send and receive both on-chain and via LN in the same wallet. Some wallets opt to separate the two balances (savings and spending) generically speaking. Others unify and make no difference between the two. Now there are also others that fully skip on-chain and focus on LN and ecash.
ZEUS that I know, is the only one that unifies all 3... Time ago I was dreaming about BlueWallet doing so with CASHU #461498, but they instead went the other way, opting in to be on-chain only now.
I know there are different wallets for different purposes, and users should be comfortable using as many as they can for different reasons and use cases. Unfortunately, it isn't the case.
So my point in "normalizing swaps" or automatic channel opening/close could be an option to overcome this gap and have the user focusing on payments, instead of technicalities.
The other option is to find good metaphors to represent the on-chain, LN and ecash different flavours of bitcoin.
How else you would help homo fiatus become bitcoin maximus?
ZEUS that I know, is the only one that unifies all 3..
wrong. Zeus have them separate. What you see on top is not a unified balance, is just a sum of "available" sats. btw it contain a small bug,, including the channel reserve, that means what you see on top as "unified" balance is even less of "what you can send" Yes, the user can interoperate between them, but that doesn't mean are fully unified.
We need to put into users mind that LN is THE payment network and not onchain. Onchain is only to open/close channels.
Like teaching a child to use a knife, it can be useful but also harmful.
well said. Even if they harm themselves,, will be only once. They will learn the hard lesson.
And talking about Zeus. By adding the LDK node was a very good decision. I've test it intensively and I can say that works flawlessly 99%. Almost never had a failed payment and sync is instant. On the other side, the new LND Sqlite still have some issues with path finding and sync. LND remains for more advanced users, meanwhile LDK is for newbies and users with connectivity problems. But the mechanics of LN channels is the same.
And here is kind of documentation that we should teach users https://darth-coin.github.io/nodes/private-ln-channels-types-en.html Once they get how it works, will be easy for them and will not struggle with liquidity. But the question is,, how many wallet apps you see doing this kind of documentation_
Here is another example of documentation that is mostly ignored by many users. https://bitcoin.design/guide/how-it-works/liquidity/ 100 sats Question: which wallet app is pointing its users to this documentation?
Swaps should not be a norm in daily use of a BTC wallet.
Swaps should be used ONLY when you have a depleted channel.
I do not think integrated swaps are an important feature and decisive to choose a wallet.
Sometimes is even better if you use external swap services and just pay with that wallet.
So do you think it would be better to have a unified balance and swaps happening under the hood, when needed, without the user knowing about it?
NOOOO
The most idiotic thing!
Swaps must be done in specific cases and user MUST be aware of it and what imply with.
Submarine swaps have costs and hiding those costs from the user could end up in a fucking disaster. Make the user aware of those costs and they will do it manually only when they are ready to pay the cost.
Wallets should focus more on how to make it easier for the user to manage liquidity, LSPs, 0-conf channels,, JiT channels, inbound renting etc and education about these things.
Do not make the user a dumb user, make it smart, knowledgeable and in that way none of the scammers could fool them.
The "dumber" UI, more possible scams and getting rekt cases will be.
Check this example:
We do not want this to happen. That is the disaster...
It's a use case, and most of users don't even know about channels.
The issue I see is allowing users to send and receive both on-chain and via LN in the same wallet. Some wallets opt to separate the two balances (savings and spending) generically speaking. Others unify and make no difference between the two. Now there are also others that fully skip on-chain and focus on LN and ecash.
ZEUS that I know, is the only one that unifies all 3... Time ago I was dreaming about BlueWallet doing so with CASHU #461498, but they instead went the other way, opting in to be on-chain only now.
I know there are different wallets for different purposes, and users should be comfortable using as many as they can for different reasons and use cases. Unfortunately, it isn't the case.
So my point in "normalizing swaps" or automatic channel opening/close could be an option to overcome this gap and have the user focusing on payments, instead of technicalities.
The other option is to find good metaphors to represent the on-chain, LN and ecash different flavours of bitcoin.
How else you would help homo fiatus become bitcoin maximus?
wrong. Zeus have them separate. What you see on top is not a unified balance, is just a sum of "available" sats. btw it contain a small bug,, including the channel reserve, that means what you see on top as "unified" balance is even less of "what you can send"
Yes, the user can interoperate between them, but that doesn't mean are fully unified.
We need to put into users mind that LN is THE payment network and not onchain. Onchain is only to open/close channels.
what I mean is that ZEUS
unifiesbrings the 3 wallets together in one appyes, agree. Still, the user needs to be able to access both. Like teaching a child to use a knife, it can be useful but also harmful.
well said.
Even if they harm themselves,, will be only once. They will learn the hard lesson.
And talking about Zeus. By adding the LDK node was a very good decision.
I've test it intensively and I can say that works flawlessly 99%. Almost never had a failed payment and sync is instant.
On the other side, the new LND Sqlite still have some issues with path finding and sync.
LND remains for more advanced users, meanwhile LDK is for newbies and users with connectivity problems. But the mechanics of LN channels is the same.
And here is kind of documentation that we should teach users
https://darth-coin.github.io/nodes/private-ln-channels-types-en.html
Once they get how it works, will be easy for them and will not struggle with liquidity.
But the question is,, how many wallet apps you see doing this kind of documentation_
Most apps do not even allow the functionality to begin with! A good blog post will be ideal; imagine having documentation.
In regard to wallets using LDK to spin up nodes, do you know why BlueWallet removed the functionality?
Here is another example of documentation that is mostly ignored by many users.
https://bitcoin.design/guide/how-it-works/liquidity/
100 sats Question: which wallet app is pointing its users to this documentation?