It is arguably disingenuous for Core software to offer an option that has no impact. There may be users who believe it is meaningful when it isn't. It also can reduce the performance of their node. If users use the option thinking they're helping the network when they're actually harming their own node, and they eventually learn this, they may become angry at Core devs for tricking them.

all part of the plan to wrestle control of bitcoin from you

then again you think that Spiral and anyone supporting BOLT 12 are spooks, so anyone tuning in should take your "hot spook takes" with a grain of salt

I agree it is an interesting framework. But most people seem misled by the title. So maybe edit?

Take the L and remove the post. It is completely inaccurate and misleading.

Your math is off by 1,000x.

"2.1 × 10^15 sats ÷ 20,000 sats/person = 105 million users"

should be

"2.1 × 10^15 sats ÷ 20,000 sats/person = 105 billion users"

So based on your framework bitcoin scales to 5-10 billion people.

Wallets are in charge of their onboarding UI not LSPs

I don't see it. Maybe I don't know what you mean by DIDs. Can you explain?

Can you elaborate on what you mean by Lava's end goal being DIDs? (by that I assume you mean decentralized identity)

Are you familiar with the Lava loans protocol? https://github.com/lava-xyz/loans-paper/blob/main/loans_v2.pdf

Yes. It was certainly the case in 2017 and 2018 that numerous custodians did not offer many of the forked coins (Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Diamond, etc.) to their customers. Whether or not some of those exchange sold those forked coins and kept the profits...who knows but it wouldn't surprise me whatsoever.

That's the investor use case. An economic node (eg a merchant) needs to pick a coin to receive for their goods. Or, they can accept multiple coins/forks, but at minimum that creates a confusing and convoluted UX for their customers.

This is pretty consistent with BCAP https://github.com/bitcoin-cap/bcap

₿OSS 🫡

That's a goal with the BTCPay app project https://github.com/btcpayserver/app

There's been some discussion of a BOLT 12 protocol modification to allow for Zaprite to integrate with merchant LN wallets.

There's of course all the challenges of mobile including availability to sign to receive money. Async payments protocol helps but whether applicable to a merchant depends on the volume and type of merchant.

Right, like BTCPay :) (or, Zaprite)

refunds? accounting?

Kinda. It is a bearer asset in that if you lose the token you lose the (claim to the) money.

Accepting a LN payment right away requires online access and interactivity. If you have that then you also can settle the e-cash payment immediately.

This would mean you never received the payment.

Response from Bitwise ETF https://x.com/teddyfuse/status/1792535008021790813

The receiving wallet can swap the token from the sender's mint to a token from the receiver's mint trustlessly via LN, with all the complexity hidden from the user.