SN's wallet plans \ stacker news ~meta

pull down to refresh

6626 sats \ 183 comments \ @k00b 29 Apr meta

We've been transitioning SN away from being a custodian for a couple months now. As is our fashion, we've done what needs to certainly be done first while maintaining what SN is. And, by improving and understanding those done-firsts, we've widened our cone of what needs to certainly be done. Before too long, SN will be not-custodians.

The plan:

allow any popular, API-enabled, external source of bitcoin (an attachable bitcoin wallet, ABW) that can generate an invoice and/or pay an invoice to "attach" to an account
allow stackers to send money directly to one another for their contributions, using these attached wallets, without needing to trust SN

Should stackers not have an external source of bitcoin for sending, they'll send "fee credits." Should stackers not have an external source of bitcoin for receiving, they'll receive "fee credits." "fee credits" can be paid to SN for anything SN ordinarily gets paid sats for, like posts, comments, or territory fees, but are not money and cannot be withdrawn. Stackers can also send each other "fee credits" but a "fee credit" never becomes a sat. (To the upside, we can store an unlimited number of "fee credits" for stackers.)

"fee credits" are needed because many people lack a popular, API-enabled, external source of bitcoin (ABW), and as not-custodians, SN won't store sats. If you have an ABW, you'll transact in bitcoin with other stackers who have an ABW, and when SN pays you you'll receive bitcoin. If you have an ABW and transact with stackers who lack an ABW, they're receive "fee credits." Stackers without an ABW will be paid by SN in "fee credits."

The below table shows all the transaction pairs. The sender's wallet type are the labels to the left, and the recipient's wallet type are the labels in the first row. The inner cells show what is received by the recipient.

senders->recipients	fee credit wallet	external wallet	sn company
fee credit wallet	fee credit	fee credit	fee credit
external wallet	fee credit	sats	sats
sn company	fee credit	sats	n/a

For example, if someone with what's called an "external wallet" in this table zaps a recipient without an "external wallet" for receiving, the recipient receives "fee credit."

The goal here is for SN to be easy to use, private, and beyond reproach. We need bitcoin for SN to be what we intend it to be, but we don't want the moral and legal liability of holding and transferring bitcoin IOUs or KYCing and geofencing people. For bitcoin to fundamentally change internet applications, I believe the applications themselves must be not-custodians. Forgetting internet applications, I believe that for bitcoin to succeed it must have many, varied, and great wallet solutions. Wallets will only get better through us using and supporting them.

Bitcoin is tethered to reality using a mathematic asymmetry, an asymmetry so significant the work required to mine and secure bitcoin can't be forged. Yet, once mined, verifying, sending, and storing this work is relatively trivial. It is through this tether that Bitcoin gains the benefits of the internet, globally settling units of this work quickly, while producing work that's as unforgeable as the screen you're reading this on. SN wants to be real in a similar sense, for its territories to inherit the borderlessness of the internet while the value being exchanged is unforgeable. SN needs bitcoin.

Anyway, those are our motivations and wallet plans. We will produce a not-custodial end-to-end zap beta sometime soon, then we will introduce fee credits for stackers that lack ABWs. When we transition to fee credits, the sats in your wallet will still be available as sats for withdrawal or for purchase of fee credits. The only change will be that you won't be able to put more sats in your SN wallet or zap those sats on SN (unless they are used to purchase fee credits). Every time someone receives a fee credit they will be reminded it could've been real money. We hope this plan, being consistent with the right thing to do, is also a fun way to create more self-sufficient stackers.

If you have questions, send 'em!

view all related items

505 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 29 Apr

This thread is both better and worse than I thought. Everyone's so down on Bitcoin and self-custody.

If we can't handle self-custody for moderate Bitcoin amounts, why think it'll fix everything? Why are you here? Just buy the ETF and chill, right? You seem to know something we don’t—that Bitcoin's future is all about being custodial and censorable. Sounds like you’re onto something, you fucking LARPers.

244 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 1 May

Alternate take -- delete the aggro and take it as information: this is the vibe on the best and smartest btc site around. This is what you get. Now, [what should you expect](#525232 from the rest of the world in the next decade?

And, related: what should you do about it?

340 sats \ 3 replies \ @nerd2ninja 29 Apr freebie

This makes sense for the default behavior, but can you do me a favor and for the power users among us allow a setting that tells us if the receiving end doesn't have enough inbound liquidity as to avoid our sats from being donated directly to SN instead of the intended user XD

I would be very sad to find out I just zapped someone 5k sats and they just got in store credit lol.

Hey, btw, can you add a request inbound feature to SN or something?

Also, I don't know what you're using for this interface, but I'll shill again the interface this discord mod I know made for his Bitcoin discord:

PayMeBTC-client PayMeBTC-server

240 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 29 Apr

can you do me a favor and for the power users among us allow a setting that tells us is the receiving end doesn't have enough inbound liquidity as to avoid our sats from being donated directly to SN instead of the intended user

I think we don't need a setting for this, the payment will simply fail in that case. Looking at the table, I think that's also how @k00b imagined such cases?

external wallet -> external wallet will always result in sats if it results at all

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

That could be the default behavior. Perhaps they could opt-in instead to receiving credits if they don't mind them.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 29 Apr

Huh, guess I misunderstood.

311 sats \ 15 replies \ @siggy47 30 Apr

If things aren't going well after the changes, might I suggest stackers set up a Geyser fund to relocate the whole SN brain trust to a more welcoming locale: https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-friendly-countries/

103 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 1 May

Useful info, but I always find these things lacking in adversarial mindset.

Comparable thing: I have a friend who's all-in on Puerto Rico. Stay there x years, pay no tax, blah blah. He's not even into btc, this is all normie finance, and he always looks at me like I'm an idiot.

Which is possible. More likely, in my opinion, is that when the shit hits the fan, PR suddenly stops having such favorable policies. How will it behave when the US decides it should behave differently? That's the real question.

Real 'sovereignty' is more than what a piece of paper happens to say, at this point in time.

75 sats \ 0 replies \ @cryotosensei 30 Apr

I’m surprised to learn that Singapore has the third highest per capita income in the world. I sure don’t feel rich! Haha

64 sats \ 7 replies \ @k00b OP 30 Apr

One alternative is geofencing SN off the US I guess. :)

153 sats \ 0 replies \ @sudocarlos 30 Apr

Do it. Everyone probably knows how to use VPN, right? RIGHT?!

119 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 30 Apr

As I said many times: US will be the last place on earth that will really adopt bitcoin.

10 sats \ 4 replies \ @jeff 1 May

Nah, my money is on France, Canada or the UK to be last. The US is motivated by money. They'll come around. Those other places, are just not serious.

10 sats \ 3 replies \ @kristapsk 1 May

USA already have more legal restrictions on plebs on Bitcoin use than any EU country or Canada. AFAIK, non-KYC BTC vs cash trades are forbidden, etc.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 1 May

The US has the most to lose if bitcoin wins. Our empire depends on the dollar continuing its reign.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @jeff 1 May freebie

Forbidden? Really? You can't sell BTC p2p you've mined for USD?

52 sats \ 0 replies \ @kristapsk 1 May freebie

You can if you do KYC, ask other person to show passport. You are not allowed to trade with anon. At least I remember some criminal cases around this years ago.

Of course, I'm pretty sure people are doing non-KYC trades anyway.

54 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 30 Apr

lol, I almost spat out my water when I read the list

Germany is on 12th place?! I did not expect that.

1 sat \ 3 replies \ @billiam 30 Apr

Yes, I spend my 2023 aquired BTC now with peace of mind tax free as no captial gain tax after 1 year hodling. Within the first year, since 2024, 1000€ are tax free which is awesome as well.

31 sats \ 2 replies \ @siggy47 1 May

I hate to have to say this, but if you are referring to US tax rules, after one year you get capital gains treatment. You owe taxes. It's just at a lower rate. If you sell less than one year after you buy, it is taxed at ordinary income rates, which is much higher.

54 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 1 May

He's referring to Germany tax rules

22 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 1 May

Ah. I'm packing my bags. And you mock your homeland?

235 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 29 Apr

One good thing from this is that will be less shitcoiners on SN.

62 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

https://media1.tenor.com/m/rQ4TZYm3GJEAAAAC/yes-evil.gif

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 29 Apr

Ha! Yeah, that's a good point.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Reign 29 Apr

Amen

181 sats \ 2 replies \ @bellabaxter 29 Apr freebie

SN will become a sort of LN proxy.

Sats flowing directly from user to user is an excellent perspective. A custodial wallet doesn't give us any advantage except convenience.

Accumulating too many fee credits could be a waste of sats though since those are forever trapped inside SN... and I don't mean you don't deserve fees, but I probably spend 90% of sats on tips to other users at the moment.

Do you plan to offer a market to trade fee credits?

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 1 May

It's a really good question. Seems like another economic experiment will be unfolding under our noses, either explicitly or implicitly.

129 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

I think we might be able to let you buy gift cards with them but I don't know yet.

131 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby 29 Apr freebie

Good on you, cowpokes! If anyone can deliver the seamless experience of bitcoin-enabled forums without doing custody for users, it's SN. Excited to see it shape up.

Also: users almost never do anything until they have to.

Also2: all the regulatory uncertainty around custody might end up being a gift if it pushes the trend toward real bitcoin use rather than centralized databases.

When you can't use wallet of satoshi, you look for a product you can use and end up with something like mutiny or Zeus.

204 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

Agreed. It'll be painful but the whole ecosystem will be less fragile.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury 1 May

You guys are all super communicative already, but this would be a fascinating opportunity to journal how it's going in quasi-realtime. What issues do you find, as things roll out? How do people behave? What are the blind spots, what are the opportunities to fill?

It's very meta, but could serve as a very useful guide to the rest of the btc ecosystem, and also good reading for posterity. You're an important part of history, even if you probably don't attend to it in your day-to-day concerns. (Or maybe you do -- you tell me.)

27 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 3 May

Good idea. I’ve probably already forgotten things we’ve ended up learning.

100 sats \ 6 replies \ @DEADBEEF 29 Apr

I think this makes sense. But I’m still pretty new to Bitcoin and lightning so I’m trying to understand what this means for me as Zeus is my lightning wallet of choice right now.

20 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

I need to give Zeus a spin to see if there's anything specific we can do to help Zeus customers.

Wallets will get better at this kind of thing overtime though. I'm pretty sure of that at least.

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @DEADBEEF 29 Apr

Maybe @evankaloudis can provide some insight?

114 sats \ 1 reply \ @evankaloudis 3 May

I think you should be able to do a double hodl invoice. Let's try it out

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 3 May

We’ll probably have short expiries on ours but I’ll know more next week

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xIlmari 30 Apr

How about you wait for wallets to get better, then, before making these changes?

105 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 1 May

Wallets only get better by people using them. Part of why they suck is we're all using custodial services.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @OPAGO_PAY 29 Apr

Thanks for your work!

100 sats \ 6 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 29 Apr

It sounds like a significant change, a necessary one that aligns with the ethos of Bitcoin.

How will the SN (10%) fee work? Are two invoices generated? One for the Zap and one for the fee?

64 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

We'll wrap the receiver's invoice in a hold invoice that pays us our fee, but we only get paid if the receiver gets paid. This also has a side effect of hiding the receiver's node pubkey from the sender. So, we get our fee, it's non-custodial, and the receiver's privacy is perfect.

1039 sats \ 2 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 30 Apr

Be very careful with this. Study the LNProxy source code and understand why they make the decisions they make. Also understand that this may result in more force closes from the payer side. It's easy to lose money on this if you're not careful.

One thing you don't have control over is what CLTV is being set on the receiver invoice. If you don't have a direct route to every wallet, which you might be able to do easily enough, you're also going to get into fee and timeout trouble.

You mention zeus somewhere else, a hodl invoice to a hodl invoice just sounds like a disaster.

You're going through all of this "fee credit" work, might as well make fee credits a requirement throughout this site. It sounds like as a non-custodial receipient, I'm still going to be acquiring "fee credits" from non-wallet users, and I'm effectively unable to do a single thing with those besides upvote with them. Perhaps just treat fee credits as a requirement to participate in the site at all, make it required gas in order to get credit for zaps to other people.

2nd point

You're recreating the wheel here a lot. If you look at what's been done with nwc.dev, you can effectively just create two invoices, one to the recipient's wallet and one to you. Send them to the wallet via NWC and have them both be paid by the sender. You can use lnurl verify to ensure they are paid, and if both of them are not, then don't show the upzap at all. Granted, there's not a lot of wallets that support NWC yet.

All of this is going to be difficult, sucks to see you have to do this. I would rather just deposit sats from my wallet and occasionally use this site for the few dollars worth of sats that are involved for most people. Though without the ability to withdraw those, it starts to make this site less worth it for me. Nostr has already figured this out, you're just in the difficult position that you have to monetize through the use of zap volume. The other nostr clients aren't doing this.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 30 Apr

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

If you look at what's been done with nwc.dev, you can effectively just create two invoices, one to the recipient's wallet and one to you.

We can do 2 invoices, but for a QR-code payment it's an undesirable UX. Also lnurl-verify doesn't look like it will be merged, nor can we rely on everyone using lnurl for receives.

Nostr has already figured this out

🤔

you're just in the difficult position that you have to monetize through the use of zap volume.

We don't monetize with zaps. We take a fee for sybil resistance and pay it back out in rewards.

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 30 Apr

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Sybils are great and all, but you'll find that this already works pretty well.

https://oddbean.com

108 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 29 Apr

We'll wrap the receiver's invoice in a hold invoice that pays us our fee

That is a RED ALERT: IMMINENT FORCE CLOSE channel We will see so many noobs with these:

https://m.stacker.news/28755

@remindme 6 months

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 1 May

Anything in the SN setup that @k00b proposed that is different from the general info in your various guides? In other words: is the proposed SN use case / architecture special somehow, or would someone reading a subset of your guides be well-positioned to interact with SN in the new era?

51 sats \ 6 replies \ @Reign 29 Apr

Will the people with external wallets see two balances? Credits and sats?

30 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

Until they remove their sats, yes.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Reign 29 Apr

One more question, do you have a date planned for when it will be implemented?

25 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

No firm date yet. It'll be a month at the earliest.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Reign 29 Apr

I think this is my last one, do I need to have a send and receive wallet attached? Like a Lightning wallet and LNbits? Or does just a wallet suffice?

25 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

If you only want to receive sats when they are sent to you, you only need a receive wallet. If you want to send sats to others, you'll also need a sending wallet.

We'll continue to add more wallet connections.

37 sats \ 0 replies \ @Reign 29 Apr

Thank you koob, I’m grateful you took the time to answer my questions. You are doing a great job.

51 sats \ 0 replies \ @nym 29 Apr

Good plan team.

121 sats \ 4 replies \ @StillStackinAfterAllTheseYears 29 Apr

This mostly makes sense to me, a not-super-technical user.

A few questions that may simply reflect that not-super-technicalness:

So if a stacker without a wallet zaps me, a user with a connected wallet, I'll get the fee credits they send, right? Then I'll have both fee credits (from SN) and also sats (from my connected wallet) available to zap with? Or are the fee credits only good for posts/comments/territory fees?

Also, how will fee credits (both sending and receiving) impact daily rewards (or whatever form of rewards are in place come May)?

Oh, and what happens to the sats if I zap someone, but since they don't have a wallet, they can only get fee rewards? Do they enter the reward pool?

58 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

So if a stacker without a wallet zaps me, a user with a connected wallet, I'll get the fee credits they send, right?

Yes.

Then I'll have both fee credits (from SN) and also sats (from my connected wallet) available to zap with?

Yes. We will likely prioritize sats when the recipient can receive them, unless you indicate you'd prefer to send them fee credits.

Also, how will fee credits (both sending and receiving) impact daily rewards (or whatever form of rewards are in place come May)?

They will work just as they do now. SN can transmute fee credits to sats and pay them to people as sats (if they have a wallet to receive them).

Oh, and what happens to the sats if I zap someone, but since they don't have a wallet, they can only get fee rewards? Do they enter the reward pool?

They will receive fee credits. You're effectively buying fee credits for them.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @StillStackinAfterAllTheseYears 29 Apr

Thanks! This clears up my questions.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @riberet19 29 Apr

With this clarification I understood it quite well.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 1 May

Good questions, very clearly expressed. Helpful.

87 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 29 Apr

Sooooo SN got scared because Darth was laundering millions of sats through SN? You can't stop Darth.

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 29 Apr

🤣 😂

darth only needs an axe and a chair

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @TNStacker 29 Apr

🤣

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @Natalia 29 Apr

😂😂😂

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @SaloonCat 30 Apr

This looks very well handled at a conceptual level. I'm sure the procedural transparency is appreciated by others as much as me, and I've no doubt the execution will fulfil the potential of the conceptual vision.

It looks like BOLT12 could be useful in this kind of architecture too. I look forward to seeing things move forward.

10 sats \ 5 replies \ @kepford 29 Apr

These fee credits sound a little like eCash tokens. Or like they could be. And aren't you going to be custodians of the fee credits? I'm sure you've talked to attorneys but man does this sound like the regulations of the state forcing weird work arounds.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 29 Apr

Fee credits are basically an in-game currency. It's not money anymore.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 29 Apr freebie

Yeah, since you can't withdraw them I see what you mean.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 30 Apr freebie

It can be very ecash like in UX but with the ability to withdraw. I hope to see a fedimint integration at some point. There's a lot of complicated things going on here instead of just asking users to write down 12 words for a federated ecash balance. SN doesn't even need to run a mint, just let users select their own from bitcoinmints.com

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 29 Apr freebie

These fee credits sound a little like eCash tokens. Or like they could be. And aren't you going to be custodians of the fee credits?

They aren't money and can't be withdrawn. They can only be paid to us. Custody implies the thing in question has external value, that they'll leave the "closed loop," and these cannot. They are like Starbucks points.

I'm sure you've talked to attorneys but man does this sound like the regulations of the state forcing weird work arounds.

The weirdness is pretty intuitive here. We can't take custody of funds or take control of funds on transit from one person to another ... unless, we KYC AND spend millions of dollars and several years getting licenses.

We might eventually do something like Fountain or Primal and white label a licensed custodian offering a built-in custodial service on an opt-in basis. But, they can't serve most of the world, several US states, and have soft KYC and tons of monitoring. We're trying to do the bitcoin friendly thing here. I seem to have more faith in bitcoin than most people do though.

91 sats \ 0 replies \ @Taft 30 Apr

A suggestion for @k00b:

Can also provide a guide describing the process of attaching the external wallets, of zapping and so on?

I think this will be helpful for a lot of stackers.

1040 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 29 Apr

Hey SN! DO YOU HAVE A MONEY TRANSMITTER LICENSE?! YOU HAVE 10 SECONDS TO COMPLY!

https://m.stacker.news/28748

30 sats \ 3 replies \ @Wumbo 29 Apr

Two Questions:

Are SN lighting address going to still exist (Wumbo @stacker.news)?

Any thoughts on how long SN will try to send to external wallet? What if external wallet node is down? Slow internet connection?

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

It will retry as long as the person zapping you will retry. If your node is unreachable we can tell that to the zapper or give you fee credits. This will probably be a setting.

Your Lightning address will pay to your ABW if available.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @bellabaxter 29 Apr

Do you have to be connected to every personal node directly to test if they are reachable? Or do you have to wait for the timeout of the payment?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

You wait for the payment. But the payment is assumed to succeed. You'll get a notification if it fails and you can retry.

25 sats \ 8 replies \ @Tef 29 Apr

And this will be the end of SN, right? Or SN will become a random forum like many others on the web. Someone should say this...

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

Why do you think that?

133 sats \ 6 replies \ @Tef 29 Apr

It would be too complicated and people will leave SN.

I agree with @DarthCoin:

For each zap, no matter how many sats will be, will carry a routing fee. Yes, stackers can open a channel with SN node and could have 0 fee. But not so many will afford that channel. These fees will make many stackers realize that is quite expensive to zap. So they simply stop zapping, stop posting, stop replying etc. SN will lose a lot of traffic. Some stackers here are even stacking hard few thousands of sats and then go to buy groceries with sats from SN... some people are looking to every single sat.

If you want this to happen, go ahead! Transform this forum to some kind of an elite Bitcoin forum.

128 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury 1 May

You're making good points. Here's a more optimistic take:

All of this scrambling was inevitable, it was only a question of when.
People with skin in the game (e.g., people trying to truly build on btc in the actual world) will face the same scramble.
It will suck ass, but it will reveal a lot about the actual state of the ecosystem.
Via responses like this, the ecosystem will adapt in the direction of more resilience.

The bad news:

The point where btc feels like a 'success' for most people will take longer than most people think.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 1 May

The point where btc feels like a 'success' for most people will take longer than most people think.

Yep. For bitcoin to be bitcoin, it has to be usable at the edges so it can survive attacks to the middle. It isn't very usable at the edges but that's mostly because we've all been lazily building in the middle.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @ca 29 Apr

They don't have choice. The US is going after custodians.

I agree with the barriers for newcomers. It's going to suck.

Is LN a failed project?

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

Is LN a failed project?

I don't think so.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @ca 29 Apr

That this whole Money Trasmitter legal shitshow would happen was predicted by bcashers in 2017, to be fair.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 30 Apr

As a counter to lightning, the video is better than most.

But, we don't have a ruling yet wrt the recent redefinitions of money transmission.

320 sats \ 9 replies \ @DarthCoin 29 Apr

You better change the whole system of zaps: LITERALLY CONVERT THEM IN COWBOY TOKENS.

Make users to buy first these tokens, with real sats. Then internally they can use it as zap tokens. Yes sounds like a shitcoinery, but you can extend this to many things. Like a gamification of SN. How you are playing World of Warcraft or something like that.

If they want to "sell" those tokens, make a SN internal auction and people can trade freely between them.

No more wallets, no more sats, no more trouble.

10 sats \ 8 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

That's what this post describes. What you call "cowboy tokens," I'm calling "fee credits."

21 sats \ 7 replies \ @DarthCoin 29 Apr

maybe is the same, but is really confusing what you describe with that table and external wallets.

Make it simple: you buy cowboy tokens. Done. Or even better make them more "compliant"

https://m.stacker.news/28752

218 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

It's hard to explain a UX with words, but I wanted to try for people.

If people would prefer I made these kinds of decisions without telling anyone, or getting their input, they can go use any other application on earth and get that experience.

10 sats \ 5 replies \ @bellabaxter 29 Apr

We will trade cowboy tokens on Robosats

Or there could be a dedicated territory for offers and the trade could be done via DMs

1 sat \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin 29 Apr freebie

It would be preferred to be only inside SN, a special auction desk like in WoW game. To buy a nice cowboy hat and some pistols to shoot shitcoiners... That will keep SN out of fed watching.

123 sats \ 7 replies \ @SwapMarket 29 Apr

Hold on. Are you saying I must be looking for an LN address provider SECOND time in one day? First ln.tips bailed, now you. Are you all got scared of FBI all of a sudden? I am happy you call those sats "internal credits", as they really are, but allow us buy and sell those credits for LN sats (what is called "depositing" and "withdrawing" now). I don't see how you can make API for my external wallet/node send a zap to another customer without some significant security risk. And I won't be bothered to copy paste invoices for every single zap.

130 sats \ 2 replies \ @bellabaxter 29 Apr

Panic is spreading fast. Sad.

311 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 29 Apr freebie

This isn't panic though, we've been planning this for a while and the recent events only validated our plans

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @bellabaxter 30 Apr

Full respect for SN developers. mine was an observation about the whole ecosystem

1 sat \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

You could use zbd or blink or wos.

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @ca 29 Apr

wos has exited the US.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 30 Apr

First ln.tips bailed, now you.

We aren't shutting down.

I don't see how you can make API for my external wallet/node send a zap to another customer without some significant security risk.

The code is open source. Most APIs for spending have budgets you can set on them.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xIlmari 30 Apr

You'd think them being in Texas would make them not be afraid of feds.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @mo 29 Apr

see ya @sn

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @falsefaucet 3 May

damn.

unfortunate outcome.

105 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 3 May

It won’t be as bad as people think in the end. It’ll be a bit jarring but we’ll be working our butts off to make it good.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 30 Apr

Is it now possible to use SN with the Alby extension on a PC? @ek

64 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 30 Apr

Oh, thanks for reminding me! We used to support Alby via WebLN but when we added attached wallets, we accidentally replaced window.webln with them which broke Alby.

I'll add it to my list, maybe it's a very simple change and I'll add it today!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 30 Apr

waiting to try ... 😂

0 sats \ 8 replies \ @Fabs 30 Apr

Hm, simplified:

No ABW results in loss of ability to earn Sats.
An ABW allows for the "default" usage of SN, receiving Sats instead of the "fee credits".

Correct?

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @ek 30 Apr

Yes

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @Fabs 30 Apr

But, the "fee credits" can be sold to SN, which converts them to Sats (or gift cards, TBA) which means that technically, both are Sats, only that "fee credits" need an extra step in order to be Sats.

Correct?

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b OP 30 Apr

SN will accept "fee credits" as if they were sats (in addition to also accepting sats).

SN can spend its own bitcoin freely, so it will take the fee credits it earns and pay them back out as sats in rewards.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Fabs 30 Apr

Ah, meaning one can't "stack" these and simply convert them into Sats once a specific amount has been acquired, but has to actively spend them in order to enter the daily rewards, thus enabling one to acquire Sats.

Otherwise, you're simply left with hot air, correct?

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b OP 30 Apr

They cannot convert them. They can pay them to us, and we can "convert them" and distribute them as sats in rewards.

The main thing is that we can't control money on your behalf. The sats/credits in rewards are ours and we can choose what we do with our own money.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Fabs 30 Apr

Ah: one can contribute them to a "pool", thereby influencing the total rewards for a given period, correct?

But that doesn't mean that one automatically receives something in return for doing so, also correct?

Which means that one could go out empty-handed while giving something in return, triple correct?

I'm not judging, simply trying to get the bigger picture.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 30 Apr

As is also the case today, yes, yes, and yes.

view replies

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @bzzzt 30 Apr

whats the timeline for when my stacker news ln address will stop receiving sats?

25 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 30 Apr

There is no definite timeline. We'll announce it in advance though when the code is ready.

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @Coinsreporter 30 Apr

I Don't understand. Is it really necessary? I mean the 'fee credit' thing?

Zapping Sats will be optional? Won't that make SN more like others where ❤️ is more like 'free' and doesn't have any value.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b OP 30 Apr

fee credits aren't free. 1 fee credit = 1 sat. Fee credits just can't be withdrawn.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 30 Apr

Then I think I should re-read this. I must have misinterpreted something.

In this case It will be a better option to implement.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @bzzzt 30 Apr freebie

so if you have your own wallet attached in the settings for send and receive, stacker news will pretty much work the same ( pending connectivity issues). if you dont, then you will need to pay to post using lightning in some fashion or use an earned fee credit to post and wont have a custodial wallet you can withdraw from. ya? if yes, will tor nodes be supported for send/receive?

0 sats \ 8 replies \ @0xIlmari 29 Apr

For an external-to-external zap, does it mean that the recipient's wallet needs to be online when a zap happens? Mobile wallets can't be online 100% of time.

Also, does that mean that every zap, even 1 sat, will now be subject to an unknown LN fee?

Does it also mean that the UX of zapping will involve leaving the SN app to get to the wallet app and confirm the payment?

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @StillStackinAfterAllTheseYears 29 Apr

Would using a custodial wallet like Alby (since you're presumably looking at 4-5 figure amounts from SN), and then moving sats from there to your other wallet be a viable workaround (as long as other custodial wallets exist)?

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

does it mean that the recipient's wallet needs to be online when a zap happens?

Yes.

Mobile wallets can't be online 100% of time.

I know.

Also, does that mean that every zap, even 1 sat, will now be subject to an unknown LN fee?

It's not unknown. It depends on the route and the fee limit you set for the payment.

Does it also mean that the UX of zapping will involve leaving the SN app to get to the wallet app and confirm the payment?

If that's what your wallet requires to pay invoices, then yes. Not all wallets do that though.

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @0xIlmari 30 Apr

This introduces a lot of friction to zapping UX and I dare say it will kill micro-zapping, if not zapping in general.

This means that people who intend to withdraw sats (instead of just stacking cowboy tokens), perhaps even earn a living out of SN, will need to run a 24/7 online lightning node, or else they would be missing out on zaps.

Not to mention that zaps failing would be annoying for the sender too.

Not everyone can afford to open a channel straight to SN just to guarantee that they can control the fee. And having fees introduces friction to zapping.

And I can't speak for others, but I'm very happy with my wallet and don't intend to change it for another. I'll just stop zapping (after I withdraw my sats while they are still sats).

118 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 30 Apr freebie

will need to run a 24/7 online lightning node

You can still use a custodial service, it just won't be us. For example, you could use a Cashu address for withdrawals so the mint will hold your funds while you're offline. This might even already work since it works over lightning but I didn't test. I forgot where I have my cashu address lol.

I'll just stop zapping

You can keep zapping via fee credits. It will be the same signal since someone at some point bought them with sats.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b OP 30 Apr

I lack your crystal ball, but I wouldn't be surprised if people don't want to take more responsibility for the funds they use here. Still, we're giving this a shot.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @0xIlmari 30 Apr

I don't think it's a matter of responsibility. It's a matter of UX and introducing friction to zapping.

For bitcoin to fundamentally change internet applications, I believe the applications themselves must be not-custodians.

I agree in principle, but in my opinion, LN UX is not yet there yet, to support such a change.

If you want to push this on principle, at the expense of losing a userbase, or having the zap signal be of lower quality, it's your perogative as the site owner.

108 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 1 May

If you want to push this on principle [...]

I think it may be useful for you to reflect on the word 'want' in that sentence.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 30 Apr

I don't think it's a matter of responsibility. It's a matter of UX and introducing friction to zapping.

I think responsibility and friction are intertwined. For me, responsibility implies matters of UX and introductions of friction.

If you want to push this on principle, at the expense of losing a userbase, or having the zap signal be of lower quality, it's your perogative as the site owner.

I agree.

192 sats \ 43 replies \ @Natalia 29 Apr freebie

deleted by author

268 sats \ 37 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

I really like the name "cowboy credits" but I think "fee credits" might be clearer to most people. Naming is hard!

@anon would pay an invoice like they do currently. If the stacker they are zapping has an ABW that invoice will belong to the ABW. If the stacker doesn't have an ABW, the invoice will pay SN and SN will give the stacker fee credits.

62 sats \ 36 replies \ @Natalia 29 Apr

deleted by author

159 sats \ 25 replies \ @ek 29 Apr freebie

also I wonder would the zapping from external wallets quite slow?

We try to make the zapping UX with attached wallets as close to the familiar custodial UX as possible. We can do this by using more optimistic updates that we already use.

For example, currently when you zap from your custodial wallet, the frontend immediately updates but that doesn't necessarily mean that the database finished updating. We only assume it will succeed since that's the case in 99.999% of the cases. If it doesn't succeed, the optimistic update in the frontend is reverted.

We just need something similar for external payments. For example, we can simply assume your attached wallet will be able to pay and update the frontend state immediately. If the payment fails, your zap will be "undone". But keep in mind, it never really happened in the backend, it's only about look and feel.

We already do something like this but it's still really bad. That's what my priority currently is 👀

88 sats \ 24 replies \ @DarthCoin 29 Apr freebie

As I said many many many many times here: people should zap wisely. Now with this system, they will remember (again) my words. They will be forced to zap wisely, because if they will use their external wallet it will kill it with so many invoice/payment friction for few sats zaps, not talking also about the fees. Shitcoiners and grifters will just go away.

They will zap less but only when is needed. Damn it I hate when I am right again. @remindme 6 months

116 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 29 Apr

We will lift your curse of being right all the time :)

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 29 Apr

https://i.postimg.cc/c4PggNHW/k00b-sn-fbi.jpg

62 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

https://media1.tenor.com/m/UVsED-Fl1fgAAAAC/dance-happy.gif

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 29 Apr

https://i.postimg.cc/ZYwFNT2K/Darth_BTC-snowing.gif

52 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 29 Apr

It can work but only with lightning.pub or LNC to a stationary node, mobile nodes will be extinct soon™️

137 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 29 Apr

mobile nodes will be extinct soon™️

If you refer to WoS & like, Phoenix and others that are using a single LSP, then yes, will not have too much time.

But I run Zeus and Blixt on a tablet 24/7, in persistent mode. Managing my own channels as I please, exactly like any other desktop stationary node. There's no difference. I tested even with public channels and I got some little routing, with few channels. I really don't need a full desktop routing node just for few sats I use on SN and buy beers. Both these mobile nodes have also LN address implemented and could extend more features.

We have plenty of solutions.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 29 Apr

That's solid, id consider that stationary still.. they both use LND, you've found a nice workaround for hardware... Battery safe like a laptop but low footprint like a raspi 🤌

reply on another page

21 sats \ 16 replies \ @bellabaxter 29 Apr

In your experience, how many payments does a custodial home node handle before getting into troubles?

291 sats \ 15 replies \ @DarthCoin 29 Apr freebie

Some important aspects that seems nobody see with this system:

For each zap, no matter how many sats will be, will carry a routing fee. Yes, stackers can open a channel with SN node and could have 0 fee. But not so many will afford that channel. These fees will make many stackers realize that is quite expensive to zap. So they simply stop zapping, stop posting, stop replying etc. SN will lose a lot of traffic. Some stackers here are even stacking hard few thousands of sats and then go to buy groceries with sats from SN... some people are looking to every single sat.
Regarding the friction upon a node. For more transactions and channel status changes you have your channels.db will increase until will reach a moment that is very slow. yes, there are tools to compact that database, but many noobs do not even know how to manage well their channels... There are some settings you must do in your node to limit that, but all this require skills. Is not that easy to click that and that. In terms of space, in 1 week, depending on your volume of invoices and payments you db could double or triple.
We will see many nodes having FORCE CLOSE channels just because they maintain badly their poor nodes and with just few dumb zaps of 10-20 sats, could get stuck HTLC in high fee environment and because of a stupid zap on SN they will pay huge amount of fees in force closed channels. EXAMPLE HERE:
https://m.stacker.news/28753

@remindme 6 months

96 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 29 Apr freebie

https://m.stacker.news/28758

@remindme (SN's wallet plans Start + 4 weeks) :)

reply on another page

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 29 Apr

It seem like using your own node might be more trouble than it's worth.

reply on another page

26 sats \ 3 replies \ @bellabaxter 29 Apr

Lightning is super cool but very technical and if nobody can/wants to be custodian anymore it gets very difficult, especially for less committed users.

For micro-transactions fees can be proportionally high. I'd say up to 10% when sending 10 sats. Never saw more than that though.
To prevent this there could be a pooling system, maybe the custodial balance could be maintained to at least 10k sats in order to avoid creating too many transactions and to allow offline nodes to come back online.
What a nightmare! This could happen any moment when using lightning, correct? More zaps only means more stuck HTLC.

view replies

0 sats \ 8 replies \ @standardcrypto 8 Oct

Is every SN zap really a lightning transaction? That's nuts. Why?!

The only LN transactions should be topups for when there is insufficient funds in your SN wallet.

I guess now ln is cheap enough that it doesn't matter, so why not?

But this won't last forever.

Edit: as to the why, I guess the answer is so that SN can be not-custodians and all the regulatory and ethical and security headache that flows from that.

Well, that does make sense.

view replies

173 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

I just saw the Blink API announcement the other day. I'll look into it.

I don't think Zeus has an api yet. I might be wrong though.

37 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 29 Apr

work with @justin_shocknet and his lightning.pub / shockwallet. From what I saw I think is a very good solution for SN.

50 sats \ 7 replies \ @DarthCoin 29 Apr freebie

we will move all to anons. Case closed.

20 sats \ 6 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

You can also pay invoices from your account if you'd like. This is all still WIP so we'll listen to feedback the whole way through as usual.

50 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 29 Apr

nah... I will became DarthAnon And I will launder even more sats through SN. Just like that.

20 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Apr

You will just be paying an invoice to yourself. We will never have control of your money.