Thread

I just tried, with several amounts, to topup my bitrefill account - but it just won't do. Already having a not so good mood aside, this does not feel like the "lightning fast and easy to use Bitcoin" that is promised. Fun for nostr, thats for sure - but apparently not worth it for anything outside of it. image

Replies (47)

I didn't note them all down, but the ones I tried were shoving market statistics in my face and usually multipurpose for XMR, BTC and other things. All I want is to create or restore a wallet, send, receive, see a transaction history and optionally have a contacts book. This other wanna-be stock market stuff is not what I am here for... I mean, most of the fiat apps I see don't include conversion rates in their main screen when you open the app. x) The one I am currently testing is StackDuo. BTC, Monero, simple and nice. Will give Cake and moneroju a try though, doesn't hurt to try things out. :)
First thing I would tacke is "Human friendly error messages." Second thing is simplyfying wallets. LND, CLN and Eclair all cook their own stew in this regard. We have nostr - use it. NWC is literally made for this. No need to set up a reverse proxy, works from within Tor or through a VPN and whatever. Third is making it less of an "exclusive club". Got no channels? Get rekt! ... This has to change. Not everyone has 100 USD flying around in a drawer to fund a channel to el-random-person and pray their uplink is and stays stable. Fourth: Link to existing Bitcoin wallets. Use what you got and extend upon that. Why do I need separate BTC addresses? Feels redundant and more to manage than neccessary.
🛡️
The critical flaw is the existence of HTLCs. Remove HTLCs and you basically remove 99% of the complexity and things start working much better. It's too big of a change, it would basically mean starting from scratch with a new protocol -- and one that is not "trustless", so there would be crying. Try proposing this to any of the Lightning developers and watch their reaction.
Agree, the list goes on and on... -relies on large centralizing middlemen nodes for succesful routing and cheapest fees -need capacity to recieve to begin with as you said -limited in the amount you can send -can't transact without both parties being online at the time of transaction -can be rugged if your node is offline -bad receiver privacy, IP is exposed by default, and hidden balances can be discovered by a passive adversary -can be force closed onto the base chain against your will -ability to grief honest users with zero cost -worst of all it isn't a real solution for scaling for all the downsides you take on Another big thing that recently came to light. Critical security issues discovered that are unresolvable without base layer changes (we both know how nearly impossible that would be) lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2023-October/004154.html
When I started running my CLN node I took these kind of failures as a sign that my connectivity with the network had to improve ie. I needed new channels. Today I dont remeber the last time a payment failed. If you don't want to do this, open a channel with an LSP.
How many channels, good peers? If you have 3 small channels to shitty raspberry pi Tor nodes it will be unreliable. But the problem in this case is the user, not Lighting. If you want reliable, fast and self custodial Lightning try Phoenix.
Poor excuse to blame these things on users. Good engineering (KISS principle) and UX are laughably bad and not well thought out on LN. Ingwie seems above average in his technical knowledge and I always see him and many others struggling with it. The average person is never going to do all these technical gymnastics. Lightning is hot garbage. Time to scrap it and figure something else out.
Retarded take, there are well engineered lightning wallets for end users, but a pure lightning node like CLN or LND needs to expose the raw stuff and is not built for ease of use in regards to simple payments. Its built as a powerful tool to interact with the lightning network in all possible ways. Saying CLN is not user friendly enough is like saying the back end software of your bank is not user friendly enough (which they hire engenieers for)
Yes phoenix runs on their (Acinq's) implementation called Eclair. This is a very reliable and easy to use setup. But if you want to self host some good channels to highly connected peers (like the Acinq node) really help with reliability. Also Tor really makes things unreliable, which is a Tor problem, not a Lightning problem as you could run everything on clearnet too.
Electrum, and previously obw on mobile wallets have worked well for me. Have previously had own clightning node set up but that definitely felt like a lot of work for a worse experience, at least for the amount of effort I was prepared to put in.
Exactly my mood. I can not bring myself to trust a custodial solution, at all, because I do not see this as the real purpose of even holding any sats, BTC or whatever (unless it's a conversion service like Bitrefill where it makes sense to have a temporary custodial wallet to convert out from). But man do I wish CLN was a little... better. Cryptic messages, only JSON output on the CLI (I am not a maschine...) and only Zeus seems to support it, at all, via a plugin, that requires you now to disable an internal plugin, further complicating things. I WISH I had gone with LND. There is so much more support for that out there than CLN, like a LOT.