Oddbean

Is this a new level of gaslighting? A: Lightining UX is shit B: wdym, custodial wallets have great UX, what more could you want. A: self-custody B: nOoNE iS sToPpInG yOu (except terrible UX which was the whole original discussion point)

Here I hope I'll be able to put it together in a way it's understandable this time. Statement is "LN UX is shit" That's a generalized statement that don't hold true when you consider the % of custodial vs non custodial use. You come adding a new parameter and you say you want self custodial use. You change the equation. It's no longer "LN UX is shit" it's "LN self custodial UX is shit" (hard) By adding a new parameter, you changed the initial statement, then you'll get a different answer. You claim to know "Physics/C++/", yet you fail to understand, or you intentionally make a disingenuous argument when you add additional parameters to something, the outcome will likely change. Are you admitting you don't know how simple equations work? I hope that helps. You might be like "crypto doesn't mean shit w/o self custody" that's your opinion (also mine) many just simply don't care. They just want and easy and cheap way to play w/ their shiny sats. Masses are not self custody cypherpunk crypto fundamentalists, and likely they'll never be.

Pack it up bois, leave node running to the pros. I'm not worthy of the priveledge nor possess enough intelect nostr:nevent1qqsyqh82lvwdm55qldenuzeefzvxkmfypp2al2untgtcrp8kunfqdlgppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgs9pk20ctv9srrg9vr354p03v0rrgsqkpggh2u45va77zz4mu5p6ccrqsqqqqqpr9ln7f

They are fine pieces of software that make it as easy as possible to use Lightning in a self-custodial way. That was never in question. The UX issues exist at the protocol level, they are stuff that apps can't easily solve. Things like: the need to run a service 24-7, liquidity management, incoming liquidity, routing and failed payments. Not to mention the overreliance on lnurl which has a whole different set of requirements

While I agree those are all issues, there is no technology without tradeoffs. I personally don't think that those make lightning unusable or even especially difficult, and they are problems which exist with lots of internet technologies. It will continue to get better and different layers with different tradeoffs will start to be more popular. 5 years ago, there barely was a lightning network. Now, it likely accounts for the majority of Bitcoin transactions (not by volume obviously but by quantity). For better or worse, probably over half the world is waiting until their bank offers a Bitcoin checking account before they decide to try using it. And that isn't because of a small blocksize or high fees, blocks are basically empty right now. So let's not break a good thing.

Fair enough. I agree with that too, and I look forward to seeing cool new ways to make it easier to manage. Ideas like Ark or CTV seem interesting but there clearly isn't demand yet for new solutions for scaling to be brought to production.

Running a Lightning node requires an equal amount of love for Bitcoin and disrespect for your own lifetime. Pretending it's usability is all sunshine & lollipops is free, dreaming of self-custodial adoption is priceless.

People that are shit at running nodes (and terrible node default settings) are the reason the average person feels burned by lightning. nostr:nprofile1qqs0nt9skq6vfsgh06v979rrnuchau87mmnk2lqxpv2xaeusqfp30mqpzamhxue69uhky6t5vdhkjmn9wgh8xmmrd9skctcpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctc9ad278is right, running a routing node is not for the average person.

LMAO I didn't even had to make this shit up, someone eventually wrote it unironiacally nostr:nevent1qqsxt3sn6qyegs52k9rj8lwwweggv4vw2j7ev7gu57m4y0msvvsag7cpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wchsygxpax4n544z4dk2f04lgn4xfvha5s9vvvg73p46s66x2gtfedttgvpsgqqqqqqs3z5fh5

Private node? You opened multiple channels in unannounced mode? Why are you balancing them then? They're private, they don't route. Private channels work better when they're not balanced. Surly you've read the manual and know that? Only public channels need to be balanced. They work better when they are balanced because it provides paid routing opportunities to route other people's payments. Private channels never route payments so being balanced doesn't do anything for you apart from waisting fees balancing the channels. There's no point balancing private channels. RTFM

Quick poll: who here believes this is the final goal? No judgement, be real nostr:nevent1qqs29u7c93dxf0vm0pyml9ray809ntfqrf020q5njfq9klfnuzmu5rgppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgsqddupn4l3cl65wggcyehd009g0pwuatsfudh28f90vewx68vrylqrqsqqqqqpjuwky7

I wouldn't say it is the goal. Complete freedom and self custody is always the goal. But I do think that this is a realistic outcome, and I don't believe it would be due to technical challenges. Most people don't want that level of responsibility that comes with that freedom. If one day it becomes clear that 250M+ are trying to use base layer Bitcoin, my perspective may change.

Folks will work 100k hours in their life but won't even spend a day a year to manage their own savings throughout their lifetime. They'll spennd money every day but think "someone else can do it, money's not my kind of thing" Crazy to think they'll spend a day a year keeping a node reliable! 🤣 This isn't a dig on the LN protocol; there are Uncle Jim islands everywhere using their channels well. It's aimed at "lightning" the nebulous term that means "all things not-onchain regardless of how custodial or nonprivate or poorly designed or thought out"