> 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.

Undisciplined

My issue is in calling it a non-custodial solution, which 

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.

bitcoin_beginners

"Non-custodial" means nothing if it is not used as such

billytheked

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.