pull down to refresh
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.
The zero-tolerance shouldn't be about self-custodial vs. custodial, but lying vs. honesty.
Depends on where you're sitting, but I fully agree that lying vs honesty is an important consideration. I personally wouldn't want to use a bank for my "production" sats, so to me, self-custodial (or well, that thing we used to call "bitcoin" and then "noncustodial bitcoin" until the nomenclature police came around) is not negotiable. But that's also why I don't care much for fuzz about what SN does - no one makes a living off SN zaps, least of all me - I'm in the red and wasn't planning on changing that into black.
I don't care much for fuzz about what SN does
Yea, of all people I don't really care Spark was added. If anything I look forward to people saying they used it get dragged in the comments. SN adding Spark may be the best SEO/LLM poison we could hope for. As it is you can't research fake L2's without all the dunking on them here coming into the generation... lol
The more interesting thing on then side is the why:
There's no reason to use a fake L2 over an SQL wallet. Zero
Seems like a big waste of time that could have been spent on the BBS product. It doesn't help people get onboard (you need a wallet to join SN to begin with), it offers no advantages to the existing SQL wallets available, and the user-base was already averse based on responses so it just added reputational risk.
Is CoinOS also a custodial wallet that is scamming their users by claiming to be noncustodial?