Something like greenlight is actually sort of similar for how we work onchain with Bitcoin nodes. You own keys, but if you use the same node and not over Tor, then the node can also identify you and block you from doing what you want. So that's why I'd still call greenlight model self-custodial.
Bitcoin nodes can be connected to many peers and they validate the proof of work. How can that be compared to a centralized service called greenlight?
reply
Yes, the main bitcoin nodes run on clouds like AWS or are hosted by big companies and yet we don't call using them "centralized", because you have a choice to pick the nodes you connect to and you can do it anonymously. I'm not saying it's exactly the same, but many different businesses can run "something like greenlight" (that's why I said that above) and if there is a way to migrate between the "something like greenlight" services, then that would be comparable. Not the same, but comparable.
reply
What is your definition of "the main bitcoin nodes"? According to https://bitnodes.io/dashboard/#asns , 1.8% are on AWS and 1.9% are on google. 63% are on TOR.
Also, you'd have to migrate to an alternate "something like greenlight", but with bitcoin nodes, you don't migrate anything, you just connect to a new peer and ask for data. I think that's a huge difference.
reply
the main bitcoin nodes
I think he refers to those nodes that we know who are running them, well known bitcoiners, devs etc.
reply
But how many people connect exclusively to nodes run by "well known bitcoiners, devs etc."?
reply
quite a lot. For example, if you use Blixt wallet (that is a full LND on your mobile), is using neutrino with by default Blixt node. Same for Breez. But if you remove from settings that default neutrino node, it will get any other available neutrino node in the network. And most of them are those well known nodes, serving blocks for the public. You can set also your own node if you want and you have it activated with neutrino.
reply