reply on: Caveat Using Alby Hub To Connect To SN? \ stacker news ~meta

17 sats \ 15 replies \ @siggy47 OP 15 Sep \ parent \ on: Caveat Using Alby Hub To Connect To SN? meta

Yes, I do remember. I would like to prevent it without newbies losing their minds about an easy solution. Alby Hub seems promising. Your guide was good. Remember the other day you posted @justin_shocknet video? (I'm going to try that, BTW.) Maybe he or @supertestnet can come up with an easy UI SN solution?

I just thought of something else. I have a Start9 node that has a Mutiny Wallet app. What do you think of trying that self hosted for SN? It really worked great for zapping on nostr. I guess that needs fedi, though.

129 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 15 Sep

This is step 1: https://github.com/stackernews/stacker.news/issues/1376

Will open a second issue for the debit side soon :tm:

Once these are done, pairing SN to your node will be a matter of just entering your Lightning Address or nprofile and then clicking Accept in ShockWallet.

re: S9/Mutiny

Mutiny doesn't actually run on your Start9 to handle transactional requests, it's only hosting a copy of the files for your phone to download since Mutiny is a mobile node

We'll get a S9 distribution of Pub out eventually, they've been making some great improvements and last I talked to Matt he suggested letting some of those settle in a bit before packaging

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 15 Sep

Thanks very much for your input! THIS is excellent.

60 sats \ 12 replies \ @DarthCoin 15 Sep

I really think that SN "self-hosted" thing is for nothing, noise for nothing. Too much noise for nothing. Some things could just stay "custodial", nothing wrong with that.

0 sats \ 11 replies \ @siggy47 OP 15 Sep

I agree. The problem is SN is based in the US. (I know, fuck the guvs😀). SN could have legal troubles.

60 sats \ 10 replies \ @DarthCoin 15 Sep

SN is making too much case for nothing.

0 sats \ 9 replies \ @siggy47 OP 15 Sep

I agree there is a case for custodial, especially for now. But, don't you think it's worthwhile to develop self custodial solutions that, over time, will be simpler to use and more reliable?

60 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 15 Sep

"self-custodial" solutions are for larger amounts, not for fooling around on SN... are you serious about 10-20-30-50k cowboy credits (sats) on SN? Why we have to complicate things more than is necessary? Because some people are pussies?

43 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 15 Sep

IMHO any zaps under the "dust" threshold of 540 sats must be custodial. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE to send a 1-10-100 sats zap over SN in a non-custodial manner. I think people do not read how HTLCs works, really.

WHO the fuck cares that I sent you 100 sats zap over SN? Who the fuck cares how I use my sats? I want to challenge any gov agent to show me that bullshit law where any gov agency can have any so called authority over my own cowboy credits...

But yeah, people are afraid to ask so fucking obvious and simple questions and just get along with the fucking COMPLIANCE!

I AM SO TIRED OF SO MANY PUSSIES IN THIS WORLD!

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 OP 15 Sep

I didn't realize "dust" could be an issue on LN. I will have to read up on it, but you're usually right about this stuff.

43 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 15 Sep

LN transactions are actually onchain "not-yet-broadcasted" transactions. That means are still under the dust threshold rule. That doesn't mean you can't do it, only that are not "incentivized" to be stolen. It will cost more to stole a dust tx than to close a channel.

That's why I will say it LOUD: custodial accounts under 50-100k, even 1M ARE JUST FINE! And not just that, but will relax a bit all this crazy-mania with self-custody.

Yes, self-custody is a must, but not for meaningless and joke money.

43 sats \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin 15 Sep

In SN case cowboy credits are harmless

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @siggy47 OP 15 Sep

Yes. That's true. But how do you control spam with them? Having to pay sats keeps the bots under control.