>>104905045
>It works, have you used it? The added privacy is also nice
Sorry, missed this question. No I haven't tried a Lightning wallet, but that's because requiring both the sender/receiver to be online and provide liquidity upfront to even send/receive payments is not only a deal-breaker, it's dumb. That's the opposite of frictionless. And no, I don't want a custodial wallet to be perpetually online and provide liquidity on our behalf. Self-custody of my own funds is a hard requirement, and not having it is another deal-breaker. That's two deal-breakers.
If you can update me on some magical LN wallet that fulfills my requirements, I'd gladly do a deep dive on it to see how that even works, and I'd give it a try. Doesn't even need to be mobile.
I don't know about the privacy aspect of the LN, but if I wanted privacy, I'd consider Monero or Zcash first.

>>104919011
>lightning won't be mass adopted without institution-controlled custodial wallets
Yep, pretty much. I still maintain that this shit was dead on arrival. The LN whitepaper mentions it requires 133 MB block size to scale, and here we are with BTC maxis jacking off on 4MB blockweight, some dumbass ex-BTC developer wanting to REDUCE the blocksize to 300kb, while bullshit like ordinals managed to become a thing. What a circus. The LN is a shit solution to a self-inflicted problem. Altcoins are still the only serious contenders for implementing planet-scale decentralized digital cash.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/g/

Thread:

Lightning Network: Why did it fail to become a standard?