pull down to refresh
264 sats \ 11 replies \ @SimpleStacker 13h \ on: Lots Of Riders Without Their Weapons meta
To be fair, "gaming the system" is what SN's model implicitly assumes as given, and so the solution is to try to design a system that works well even under everyone's own self-interested behavior.
Maybe there should be a small incentive to attaching send wallets, like you get a boost in rewards, or your zaps are worth more trust.
The downside is that it makes it harder for SN to claim that "you can do everything with cowboy credits that you could do with a sat", and that opens up to more accusations of CCs being a shitcoin
Oh my god I'm blind. Thank you. Leaving this post up for my shame plus others might find it useful. Also I paid for it so there's no point in deleting it now lol.
I don't have a send wallet simply because none of my current wallets work well for send without going custodial. Once i exhausted my channels, I'll switch again (shockwallet is up next) and hopefully then it works.
However, if I send you CCs (or sats), it just means I'd like you to post more on SN. It's a compliment to everyone's contributions and an encouragement to do it more.
What Darth is doing is not connecting wallets. That's very different. By connecting a receive wallet and no send wallet, you can get real sats from fellow stackers, but you only zap cowboy credits.
Is it really easier to pay a LN invoice every so often than it is to copy paste a NWC string?
Yes, because:
- it's not just pasting a NWC string, you need to maintain that wallet and deal with any issues, including your wallet provider getting hacked
- I only have to pay a lightning invoice when I decide to. I bought 10k credits weeks ago.
I feel like I need to explain myself here. I haven’t had my sending wallet enabled for a few months now, ever since Coinos had some issues that were causing my Zaps to fail and were making my experience on SN worse. There are also things like transaction fees and SN privacy proxy fees that I avoid this way. I like having my finger on the trigger and knowing the gun won’t jam! Hahaha.
are web wallets the future?
They feel like poverty due to insane ecosystem milking by <App/Goog>le1. PWA integration feels shitty on both platforms because thats what they want it to be: as shitty as possible so that you pay your 30% app store tax - the Goog variant does a little better than the App one and there was talk of the latter wanting to remove support all together2. It's insane anyway because these smart phones don't come cheap.
get a phoenixd running on a server somewhere
Or
lnd or cln. That's honestly what I should personally do as I already have servers, but then I cannot help anyone with just connecting a wallet. I won't know what works then, and I'd like to be in the know and I like testing wallets, but not custodial ones. I'm still thinking that if Blixt/Zeus would have great CLINK/NWC connectivity, then we can probably focus on reducing the energy and data consumption of their embedded LNDs.There's also Spark
Friends don't recommend friends this, I think? lol. Also afaik the LN interface is as custodial as npubcash, i.e. you have no cryptographic / on-chain recourse when the LN channel fucks up?
Footnotes
-
Those earthquakes lately was Steve, the visionary inventor of PWA, rolling over in his grave at high RPM. ↩
NWC, when it finally worked for me, with cashu worked okay-ish, except I continuously needed to have my phone open for every zap I did on my laptop. That's a serious disruption of UX. I agree with you that the CC flow is the least disruptive, because it allows to prepay. But I know that people want sats, so if there is something good, even if I need to have my phone open all the time, I will try to be nice and do it, as long as the software is stable and non-custodial.
I could put some minor amount of sats in a custodial wallet, but all of them, as you noted above, are crap, get hacked, go down, rug... all of the shit that is no bueno. That's not what Bitcoin has ever been about for me, so why would I encourage the existence of services like that? I stopped using cashu because I have some unclaimable sats, as that is really not acceptable. No matter the amount; if it happens on a small amount, it will happen on big amounts too. So cashu/npubcash is too custodial as well, at least for me.
There must be better UX for this and I think that with SN there's a good reason to find it. NWC hasn't been it in any current implementation, but maybe we can formulate what's needed?
Dear Poet, would you mind spamming the advertiser's link sometimes in the saloon so that I don't forget to buy space on your mag for nonsense that one day may change the world? Thank you.
Thanks for bringing this up.
I agree with you; there's no incentive not to send credits. There was an idea to give out less rewards if credits were used for zaps. @SimpleStacker replied with some feedback and I came to the conclusion that the best thing is to just completely remove sending credits:
Instead of less rewards for CC zaps as an incentive to zap sats, would it be dumb to just not allow CCs to be zapped? So if you receive CCs because you don’t have a wallet etc., it’s always your own fault?I think this is also the main issue ppl have with CCs, that they see them as "hot potatoes." I think they are fine paying SN with CCs but they don’t want to pay each other with CCs.I probably haven’t thought this through, but it feels like we can solve a lot of issues with this (small?) change at once and I think the small sacrifice of UX for people without sending wallets is worth it to improve the UX dramatically for everyone else.
I’ve brought this idea up many times since then. I’ll let @k00b explain his side.
In response, I now don’t zap sats myself anymore. Still receiving them though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is a pretty good description of the current situation.
The custodial options work the best...until they suddenly don't. And they raise the question of what we are doing bothering with bitcoin in the first place.
the ecash apps all seem to have this problem of needing to be open (minibits and cashu, even the newish Fedimint app has the same issue) -- are web wallets the future?
There must be better UX for this and I think that with SN there's a good reason to find it.
I've been playing around with Lexe wallet. They have their own SDK thing (not NWC), but I imagine they wouldn't suffer the same need the app open problem.
Another cool world might be create an SN account and get a phoenixd running on a server somewhere -- but that probably means paying for and maintaining a lot more infrastructure (my technical ignorance will reveal itself perhaps in this suggestion).
There's also Spark, but as Justin points out, it's not exactly free of custodial troubles...especially when using it to interact with lightning native stuff.
I need to try Shock Wallet again now that CLINK is an option.
It's a flaw in SN rewards system.
That's why for long time I was proposing to remove totally the SN rewards.
SN must be mainly "pay to post".
Why is it blocking? I count 16 custodial "wallets" in the list (though I may be off by a couple in either direction because thinking about these gives me headaches)
Re: edit
Or did Spark find a way to "decentralize a lightning node"?
Yeah that was my point above.
phoenixd as opposed to lnd or cln: comes with stupid easy liquidity management (i think maybe Zeus also does this, but I've never been clear whether I can use that with my own node).
but then I cannot help anyone with just connecting a wallet and I'd like to be in the know and I like testing wallets
Yes! I'm in the same boat here. Also, I want a solution I can recommend to a new user that has the user experience of custodial.
But such stackers do still need to acquire CCs. So either they are receiving them or buying them.
If they have a wallet attached for receiving, they ought to mostly be receiving sats.
So then they are just buying CCs by sending sats to SN. Is it really easier to pay a LN invoice every so often than it is to copy paste a NWC string?
You're right. So it's blocking because you need to know how to protect stackers, but regardless, there is still a single point of failure on every path (even if there are multiple paths, the failure is still singular within each path, and user mitigation is required to overcome it, which is as bad as custodial)