pull down to refresh
My issue is in calling it a non-custodial solution, which @k00b did not, but which others have.
Also, I don't mind it being an option, but noobs need to beware.
Once the sats from either hit your self-custodied wallet, they’re identical to any other sats.
For you and me, that's fine. But why would we use Spark when we already have the means to self-custody.
The issue, as I see it, is that people will use Sparkcoin as "money," while there's not a viable way of enforcing their ownership of those sats, unless they are someone who already has the knowhow of using non-custodial. But the latter is obviously not the target user. So then the target user just won't.
why would we use Spark when we already have the means to self-custody.
Exactly. Most of us won’t, at least not for meaningful quantities, and that’s what I see being communicated by SN.
For people who are using Spark, at least they’ll be exposed to a reality check when they use it here.
Unless I misread the announcement, no one has to use this on SN.
I’m also glad to see the skeptics pointing out problems with Spark, but why is the reaction stronger to this than allowing custodial wallets to be attached?
Once the sats from either hit your self-custodied wallet, they’re identical to any other sats.