pull down to refresh
Same goes for CoinOS, no?
Is CoinOS also a custodial wallet that is scamming their users by claiming to be noncustodial?
Did you read their website? Where does it say "we are a custodial lightning wallet?"
The only mention I find is this:
You always have the option of taking custody of your funds by withdrawing instantly at any time.
It's not exactly a clear statement that sats on CoinOS are not yours. All the other language is about lightning an d bitcoin and "final settlement"
What's unclear about that statement?
This statement is more clear:
Also, you are being a little duplicitous here: be honest with yourself and ask is a new user who goes to sign up at CoinOS's website going to think that sats they receive are their own sats and real Bitcoin? I think the answer is yes for most people.
If someone uses an SQL wallet, its because they don't care.
If someone uses Spark, it's because they were lied to.
There's no reason to use a fake L2 over an SQL wallet. Zero. That lack of functionality over SQL is why the fake L2's lie in the first place.
I think the lies often extend to the "SQL wallets" too, they may be less obvious though. I've seen the same skewed pitches / comparisons here on SN re: those thing all the time as well.
Bottom line, much of the custodial crap out there, it be SQL or statechain or coordinated vtxos, will gladly ride "not your keys not your coin" and make up reasons[1] why the end result is allegedly the same as your p2wpkh address, and masking the underlying tradeoffs. It is never the same as your p2wpkh, not even for LN (though arguably, the exposure model in LN, and the deterrents to cheating on your counterparty, are unmatched.)
"you can immediately withdraw", "you can unilaterally exit", and so on, without mentioning the caveats. ↩
I'm not aware of any SQL wallets that make scammy claims to the degree the fake L2's do, any that do deserve the same dragging for sure.
I think this is where people miss the point on calling these things out, fake L2 defenders always fall back to whataboutisms re: SQL wallets.
The zero-tolerance shouldn't be about self-custodial vs. custodial, but lying vs. honesty.
LN is unmatched
This is my larger point personally, there can be no improvement over Lightning, as its emergent of real constraints. Spark mostly lies about self-custody, Ark specifically tried to paint Lightning as legacy.
Exactly. By allowing Spark to lie about the properties of their platform, it makes it difficult for ACTUAL noncustodial wallets that use ACTUAL Lightning to compete against them. Users won't know to switch from Spark to Lightning because they were told by Spark that they are already using Lightning.