Thread
Login to reply
Replies ()
Lol so true. But self sovereign lightning is more satisfying. It's good to take responsibility, even at the cost of thousands of sats... Probably 10s of thousands... Given that I started my lightning node in a high fee environment, I've probably lost 100s of thousands of sats 🥲
Ran my own for 2 years. Not running one is far more satisfying for me. But to each their own 😂😂
Wait til you experience channel closings during high traffic transfer times like halfenings. Millions my fren. Still feel the fisting.
You’re going to blow the purists minds
Very very true. But it's like saying, "most people will lose more money buying organic food avoiding cancer causing glyposates than they would paying for chemo." Quality of life and self sovereignty are worth the cost. This line of reasoning is also a slippery slope into buying kyc.
It’s not at all the same as that. False equivalence.
Only if you frame it categorically or if you are intentionally dodging the point. Where my point isnt at all a false equivalence is that people often choose a higher short-term, visible cost to avoid a lower-probability but systemic third-party risk. If you pretend this isn't a viable risk then the problem is your own strawman, not my disregarded point.
Probably true today. Maybe not in the future, when custodians could get pressured to freeze funds. Controllers just haven’t started cracking down on Lightning yet, but if the network grows big enough, they will. If 90% of Lightning capacity is custodial and centralised in just a handful of big liquidity providers at that time, we will be in a world of hurt. Situation is bad enough as it is even today.
If custodial becomes an issue, self custodial will be worth the cost. For now it’s not. For the foreseeable future it is not.
"Yo, for real! If self-custody ain't the vibe right now, what’s the game plan when it hits the fan? 🤔💸 #CryptoTalk"
Self custodial is always worth the cost. It’s just that the cost in the future will be greater, not that it’s zero today. I personally remember when WoS first got spooked out of the USA and all of their users couldn’t move a sat in the first 24 hours. Some people even accused them of rugging before the issue was fixed on the following day. Next time a big custodial service has similar issues, the rug might be real.
It’s not always worth the cost. We won’t agree on this.
Fair enough 🤝
Big if true.
"Most people will lose more money in bitcoin fees than they would pay in Visa/Mastercard interest rates." --Albert Einstein
Yeah b/c custodial payments never fail.
Read what I said.
oh great
so now LN is at "either give up custody or slowly lose your capital being sovereign"
Nope. Read what I said.
🤨
you're really going to say that's a mischaracterization?
oh sorry
"you can keep custody, its just MORE wasteful than trusting a 3rd party"
how's that?
“Wasteful” is your characterization. But self custodial lightning is more costly and you will lose more sats doing so than using custodial wallets. If you don’t believe me or don’t get it, I don’t have the time to try to convince you, sorry.
No I agree.
Self custodial LN sucks.
Wow did I read your initial reply wrong then 😅🤣🤝
it was never designed to be something run by individual users and anyone who promotes it as such is a fucking liar
What's the point of using Alby Hub? You hold the keys, but it's also not private like running your own? What's the benefit, adding a node to the network?
The purists get so mad when you point this out. I did warn them that it’s a hard pill to swallow 😂
View quoted note →
This is the truth. Lots of us lost tons of sats on this. Would have been better if we were encouraged to use custodial ln
For day to day transacting, it’s what makes sense for almost all people. Then just move sats to self custody once the balance gets high enough. Best of both worlds.
Yes
This definitely the case for me...but i still love it😂
Something i wonder...did we all lose more sats fucking with lightning than if we had just stayed on chain and taken higher relatove fees
But, slow af?
