2870 sats \ 0 replies \ @supertestnet 16 Nov 2023
My response: https://nostr.com/nevent1qqs2d5q8f9c4tmzvrzg47d0gn7pdhhzjtc45d7dpp5x22v8zesf8pcgpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7qgcwaehxw309ahx7um5wghxvmt59emkj73wvf5h5tcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsz8nhwden5te0dehhxarj94c82c3wwajkcmr0wfjx2u3wdejhgtcpzdmhxue69uhk7enxvd5xz6tw9ec82c30qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3jamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwdhx7un59eek7cmfv9kz7qgcwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxxatjwfjkuapwveukjtcpzpmhxue69uhhxmmvda3k7tnwdshsz8thwden5te0dehhxarj9e3xjarrda5kuetj9eek7cmfv9kz7t603cy
reply
635 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 16 Nov 2023
Zeus response 👍
https://primal.net/e/note1ek4gze5sndaahsrptwpfxtmcpuvyyx998jn9fl04e7q8trjc9t9sfftv29
reply
150 sats \ 18 replies \ @DarthCoin 16 Nov 2023
The dead cat is in LDK garden not on Zeus garden...
#315309
But anyways, Mutiny with this move, controlling people's money, is not considered anymore full non-custodial wallet. If they can stop payments to a dedicated node, then WHO is in control of the funds? Users (owners of the node) or Mutiny LSP?
Yes, users can still open channels with other nodes and still being able to send zaps through these channels (small amounts) and also pay regular invoices to Zeus users / LSP, but limiting intentionally users ability to do whatever they want with their sats is concerning.
If were a custodial account will be understandable (like LNTipBot did) but not from a so called non-custodial.
If users get rekt sending zaps and closed channels is their responsibility not Mutiny LSP. At least put just a warning about this issue but not limit it, playing gods... What's next? Mutiny will limit all invoices to other LN implementations because wallet apps are not implementing LDK? That's silly...
I hope people will see it how it looks....
This is a dangerous precedent.
reply
225 sats \ 1 reply \ @benthecarman 16 Nov 2023
You clearly have no idea how this works. We don't control the LSP and the LSP isn't doing the blocking and isn't possible because of lightning's onion routing. We are only skipping invoices over NWC that go to Zeus Pay because 99% of the time the payment doesn't go through and causes a force closure. This is all done client side when deciding what to do with a NWC invoice we receive.
reply
103 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 16 Nov 2023
So you still censor users payments, even that you give a technical explanation, censoring is censoring. Censoring is not a solution for a non-custodial wallet. It stop being a non-custodial.
Instead of talking with Zeus and get to a temporary agreement so they can stop that Zeus Pay system until you find a better solution.
A common announcement to all users (Zeus and Mutiny) it would be much better than just attacking Zeus and their users and tell them to "change LN backend to LDK" because Mutiny can't pay to their Zeus Pay. This is bullying and not fair at all.
reply
101 sats \ 0 replies \ @0330830bf9 16 Nov 2023
It bears repeating, Mutiny is a senseless project and LDK is very sus.
#315309
reply
51 sats \ 0 replies \ @dtonon 16 Nov 2023
The easier way is to put an option in the preferences, disabled my default, and let the user decide.
reply
10 sats \ 13 replies \ @Rsync25 OP 16 Nov 2023
The fault is of LDK?
Good point, if they can control isn't non custodial wallet anymore
reply
2251 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 16 Nov 2023
Did you read that post about LDK closed channels I linked?
LDK is just a "child" in LN world... not comparing with CLN and LND.
They are the ones to get the shit together and fix things.
Or at least come together with all other LN implementations and see what is wrong and fix it.
Zeus (LND) doesn't have any issue with any other LN implementation... so why Zeus is harassed to change their LND for LDK? I think this was a punch from Mutiny or a joke. Bullying.
I do not like these kind of punches between wallet devs.
Instead of fighting the banksters and govs we are fighting each others...
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture 16 Nov 2023
Wow that is crazy censorship. No place for that here!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rsync25 OP 16 Nov 2023
Yes :)
True
Make sense. I agree with you.
I can't judge no one side, I think is only fight between wallets and free market.
reply
241 sats \ 8 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 16 Nov 2023
It's not. Darth just doesn't understand and he contributes things he doesn't know to being LDK problems when it's Lightning problems.
Read the post. It's concerning zaps only and we don't control it. This is client side software. Feel free to fork it and run it yourself: https://github.com/MutinyWallet/mutiny-node/commit/c8c8eb975f593ab3eba1fb34b516514836e46ea2
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 16 Nov 2023
Why don't you (instead of Zeus) change from LDK to other implementation? You see how is this?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rsync25 OP 16 Nov 2023
Ok.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 16 Nov 2023
I had no problem zapping 10-100 sats from my other nodes (CLN and LND) to Zeus users.
Even if is concerning, you should not limit users ability to do whatever they want. That means control. That means is not non-custodial anymore.
reply
110 sats \ 4 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 16 Nov 2023
Because you're running an always online node. I have no problems zapping them either, but given enough time offline, there IS problems with locked payments especially from offline mobile wallets.
Learn to read.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 16 Nov 2023
I read. Is not limited to other normal invoices, only to zaps. is still limiting, that means still censoring...
reply
1902 sats \ 2 replies \ @supertestnet 16 Nov 2023
I support Mutiny's censorship because it is a sensible default behavior for a mobile node which users can change if they don't like it. It is worth noting that once you define censorship as "auto-failing some payments" (which I think is a perfectly fine definition btw) then all lightning nodes perform some censorship.
LND autofails (censors) payments to yourself by default, but users can configure it to allow them. CLN autofails opening a second channel to the same destination by default, but users can configure it to allow it. Now Mutiny node autofails payments to a known source of hodl invoices by default, but once again, users can change it if they want to.
Setting reasonable defaults for users is good and necessary. I am glad Mutiny makes it something you can change if you don't like their default. They are trying to give users a default setting that doesn't result in a lot of force closures on mobile. That is smart. Good on them.
Maybe someday mobile nodes will be able to safely make async payments. When that happens, I hope they will allow them by default. But today is not that day -- async payments are not spec conformant right now and for mobile nodes they are dangerous. I for one applaud Mutiny for finding a reasonable solution in the interim. And I for one want to work on a better solution for the long term.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 16 Nov 2023
I think it should be from Zeus side to limit zaps over Zeus pay, not Mutiny limiting payments to Zeus LSP... In the end Zeus is responsible for holding those sats until the Zeus user is coming online. Mutiny it just sends out.
Again, I consider this a dangerous precedent from Mutiny side.
Anyways, this happen because of the crazy idea with zaps over nostr... quite stupid idea.
view replies
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0330830bf9 16 Nov 2023
deleted by author
reply
5 sats \ 0 replies \ @lightwalker 17 Nov 2023
https://primal.net/e/note1ek4gze5sndaahsrptwpfxtmcpuvyyx998jn9fl04e7q8trjc9t9sfftv29
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @sudonaka 17 Nov 2023
Let the best man win
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @shyfire 17 Nov 2023
I'm so fucking bullish on the update that solved this.
Freedom to get rekt ❤️❤️❤️
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @adexmakai4211 17 Nov 2023
With what I have gathered so far on stacker news I think ZEUS wallet is great with some great features.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @erby 16 Nov 2023
Phoenix still a solid option?
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @justBrian 16 Nov 2023
Guess this doesnt affect my self hosted mutiny wallet on start9 unless i update it 😂
reply
20 sats \ 2 replies \ @shyfire 17 Nov 2023
Hehe. Can you access it over .onion or only .local?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @justBrian 17 Nov 2023
Both, although it doesnt port over between the two in the sense that the same wallet opens. When messing around with it i actually had two separate wallets running over the service in the same browser, one local and one on tor.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @shyfire 17 Nov 2023
Bummer. Need clearnet.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 16 Nov 2023
Is there a way to simply disable forced closes?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 16 Nov 2023
"Ideally we get the ability to do offline receives normally on LN but that future is looking really grim with LND's continued priorities on shitcoins instead of features"
:)
reply