I generally agree, and I maintain my BTC in a self-custodial wallet, but for the small amount of sats I use for zaps, it just doesn't make sense to pay for my own lightning node. The monthly expense usually exceeds the amount of my transactions. If I used lightning for more than zaps, and transacted over 100k sats per month, running my own node would make sense, but that's just not my situation.
+1. Plus, Nostr can sometimes feel like a targeted ads platform for certain Lightning ecosystems. Very few people are willing to admit that running a Lightning node to transact just a few thousand sats per month actually sacrifices not only convenience but also time and hard-earned sats.
To be clear, nostr:nprofile1qqsq4hm8gawvch9y2m7nqghydaw4ym4s4a3gf0u9f9xqm4uy0ul9qvcpremhxue69uhkstnrdajxjmn8v9ex2mnp9e6x7up0da6hgcn00qq3vamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3dwfjkccte9eshqup0qyghwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tcht4zgq, I'm not talking about you—you're not trying to hide information or mislead anyone. But I enjoy being a bit of a contrarian. There's too many people on Nostr funnelling users toward the same two or three companies selling "convenient" Lightning software and services. I’m 100% in support of users running CLN/LND nodes, as long as they have a clear understanding of what they’re getting into and why.
I ran Alby for a month, and there's no question it's a nice platform that makes running a node very easy. But when you tally the channel fees and subscription fee, it really only makes financial sense if you're transacting at least 100k sats per month. Even at 100k sats per month, you're effectively paying 20-30% in fees. For average users who are just zapping, a custodial solution makes a lot more sense. It's significantly less expensive, and lot easier.
Oddbean new post about login | logout