21 sats \ 7 replies \ @k00b 7 Apr \ on: Running phoenixd tests lightning
I'm yet to see any complaints about phoenixd. Did they really get it that right from the jump?!
It seems like the downsides are the LSP dependence and the higher fees, but is that all?
write
preview
43 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 7 Apr
Is more like a "LN funding source". Is not meant to be a LN wallet or LN node. I mean it runs like a LN node in automatic mode, but to interact with it in a proper way you need something like LNbits or BTCpay on top of it.
I think the best use case for it will be as a funding source for LNbits.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 7 Apr
Yeah, that's my understanding. Seems like a great use case for businesses that want to accept lightning payments.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 7 Apr
It depends on the definition of a lightning node but I'd describe it as a lightning node without routing/liquidity concerns.
Is not meant to be a LN wallet or LN node.
I think it is meant to be like the Phoenix wallet, but can always receive because it's running on a server (and not on a phone).
need something like LNbits or BTCpay on top of it
The same can be said for LND, can't it?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 8 Apr
LND doesn't need lnbits or btcpay. What will be interesting to see if more app devs will build apps that could link a phoenixd backend to it. For example Alby, Zeus, Bitbanana, Lnbits, Walletano.
reply
133 sats \ 2 replies \ @nout OP 7 Apr
When you make a really simple interface, it's harder to add bugs...
reply
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 7 Apr
No doubt. Less surface area for them to appear on.
reply
31 sats \ 0 replies \ @nout OP 7 Apr
Yeah, it's the same story with UIs - If you make a really complicated UI, it takes a lot of work & code to do it and it will be full of bugs, since on average every tenth line of code has a bug. Why not do simple and intuitive UI instead? 🙂
reply