reply on: SN's wallet plans \ stacker news ~meta

pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Apr \ parent \ on: SN's wallet plans meta

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.