Topic: Lightning Network Observer - page 26. (Read 13674 times)

Okay, that's pretty bad if true. I wouldn't call such wallet non-custodial. I may have been misinformed; to my knowledge, you (only you) had access to your on-chain wallet's private keys, while they (only them) had access to the Lightning wallet's private keys (and channel-state database). This is actually one challenge you should know about: backing up a Lightning wallet is not as simple as storing a seed phrase. More on this here: https://lightning.readthedocs.io/BACKUP.html#backing-up-your-c-lightning-node
And how it is done on a full Core Lightning install (just to get the idea): https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/guide-c-lightning-backup-guide-5384133

I agree! Not long ago, I came up with a relatively novel Lightning + on-chain wallet idea that even used this 'double wallet' as a feature to increase privacy when spending and receiving change back.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61020555
It hasn't left 'scratchpad stage' yet, though.

I totally get that! Myself I haven't yet found a definitive solution of a 'Bitcoin setup' that I can recommend to every beginner. Either they don't meet my privacy standards, security standards or they're too hard to manage for such users.
Besides Lightning, I've considered having a thorough look at https://keys.casa/ when I find the time. Not for me, but for the target demographic that doesn't even know how to backup some files (as you mentioned). Do you (or anyone reading) have any experience with Casa?

Actually, in my setup it's not only used for privacy but also to facilitate my remote access to a machine behind NAT, without the risks that come with opening ports in the firewall.

If you want to do it, I have some information about that and easy (and quick!) to follow install guides.
About running full node on cheap hardware: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/guide-how-to-run-a-bitcoin-core-full-node-for-under-50-bucks-5364742
Install guide (from scratch, OpenSUSE Linux): https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/guide-full-node-opensuse-153-bitcoind-electrs-c-lightning-rtl-5366854
Install guide (on Raspberry or similar, Armbian Linux): https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/guide-futurebit-apollo-btc-custom-linux-install-node-5401747

I want to put a finer point on this one.  First of all, I am all for running your own node.  SO many pluses.  My quip about it being too hard for the avg IT pro though... I want to 'splain a little.  No single part of it is all that bad.  If you have the skills to set up a Raspberry Pi, install software... flash an SD card.  Or install a big SSD in an old laptop and get core running.  Then install CL or LND (Eclair?) then you can get it all up and running.  THIS part is not that hard anymore.  Plenty of guides.  I would love to see a Raspiblitz for X64 port for the latter.  But that is not all.  Then you have to manage the damn thing.  I enjoy this.  But no one really knows how to do this optimally yet.  LOL.  Well, I am sure some do, and those people are doing things like running the WoS node etc.  But there is a lot to managing your fees, liquidity, etc.  It is frustrating at times even for smart folk (I assume).


I think you'd be fine getting a lightning wallet to work.  And frankly the custodial, and neutrino type (I called them middleground last night) wallets are just about as easy to use as a regular Bitcoin wallet, and are in fact those too... just with some added coolness.

Thanks for going over each of the areas of my questions and topics n0nce, and there are likely a lot of us who hesitate to discuss too many of these kinds of ideas in terms of our own set-ups, and maybe we even hesitate to talk about certain kinds of software that we use or hardware devices that we use because we are not always completely comfortable in terms of understanding the various ways in which we might end up being vulnerable to attacks... whether the potential attacks might be in-person or someone fishing our information regarding some of our transactions in remote ways...

In regards to the BlueWallet specifically, I might be phrasing some of these matters wrongly, so I understand that even if the wallet might allow you to back up, that would not cause it to be completely non-custodial, if the developer still retains a copy of the private keys.

With the BlueWallet, there is an ability to keep a back-up of the onchain wallet private keys and also there is an ability to keep a copy of the lighting network private keys.  They also allow you to create a "Vault" and they say that is "Best security for large amounts".. but I have not tried the "Vault" wallet.. especially if I am already having some hesitancies in regards to the BlueWallet service as a whole.

In spite of some repetition, for me, to some extent, I get some sense that the wallet could be non-custodial and that I am retaining the ONLY way to access the funds when I am given the ability to back up the wallet in each of the kinds of ways.. so that if I ever were to lose my phone or break my phone, then those back up keys would be the ONLY way that I could regain access back to the funds.. .but the mere fact that I am able to keep a copy of those keys would not establish that I am the ONLY one who has the back up keys.


I probably got that wrong information from a podcast a year ago or so, and it just stuck in my head.


build myself seems way above my current talents - even to be able to read code without my eyes glazing over....


It would be nice to have both lightning and mainchain on one wallet because there is a certain amount of desire to continue to spread ideas of similar wallet use, and to say:  "here's where you start.. this wallet has both on chain and lightning capabilities."


For sure there are a variety of reasons to try to constrain oneself to smaller amounts on mobile apps, but sometimes people will get lazy too.. or maybe not realize price changes.. and so sometimes there will end up being way more value contained in places where it should not be... I am even guilty of similar bad practices - even when supposedly knowing better.


I know a lot of people who are very limited in their computer abilities, and sometimes I am wondering why I am showing them things - but easy basic tasks are sometimes not known how to do.  Remember the people who thought that AOL was the internet?  Those people still exist, and sometimes there is a wonder how anything can get done... just in terms of saving files, copying files, maintaining a back up.. knowing the difference between an app from the internet and running something on a browser.. both challenges with the basics, and seeming failures to want to learn and even recognizing why some steps are important.

I understand that sometimes there can also be reluctance to attempt to teach people who do not seem to be trying very hard, yet sometimes we have relations with these people and even reasons to continue interact with hem for a variety of other reasons and computing (sharing information in that format) seems to come into the mix and also these days being able to transmit value. and there are further benefits to using bitcoin/lightning network over distances, including that other people are potentially in the network of possible bitcoin recipients (and then senders of bitcoin too.. once they have it and get used to it).

I guess I am trying to say that there is so much temptation to use custodial services like Coinbase or some other exchange, or maybe they would be o.k. with using square app, and yet I have such a hard time  accepting to just let it be.. because I will likely be interacting and sending value and at the same time thinking that I should not be supporting and enabling some of these problematic services. whether rug pull, privacy or just the fact that some of them are honey pots or the owners of the service are gambling within any BTC that they might hold in such fractional reserve system.


Yes.. I realize that they are two different concepts, but the practical implications still might end up playing out similarly.. at least in terms of not being able to trust the service as much, but for different reasons... depending on which one it is.... and whether one is worse than another might depend upon context..


Yes.. I understand that Tor is another way to gain some possible privacy - and yet another layer for trying to both understand and to troubleshoot if there might be issues that might come up through that, as well.


Oh, and thanks for your response, and I appreciate the framing of the issues.

Likely many of us who have been into bitcoin for a while have had quite a few interactions with a variety of friends/acquaintances in regards to various ways for them to get into bitcoin and to get exposure to bitcoin and even trying to figure out their level of interest or willingness to act or to learn, and depending on their interests and our reasons for agreeing to interact with them on the topic, can contribute to all kinds of dynamics.

In this particular case, I have some self-interest as well, and there are some desires to both spread the bitcoin word but also some of my funds are going to be factored into various possible ways to either go forward with some of these relations and to attempt to achieve certain purposes, but also various kinds of set ups for these relations could be models for some other kinds of potential future (business) relations.


I was starting to get that sense, and it may well be a bit more of a difficult task to achieve non-custodial with lightning based on the way it is designed, and even some of the earlier expectations in the design that nodes had to be "on" at the time of receiving funds.


Sure, I have been considering doing something like this... yet surely even I don't have all the time in the world, in spite my long posts in the forum.

I do have a few extra computers that I could set up as nodes - even just running bitcoin core.. and then I suppose once bitcoin core is running, then setting up a lighting node would be the next step to enhance - having then both a bitcoin node and a lighting node.. which would then give more options, as you mentioned.  I cannot really commit to setting it up in the near future based on some things that I have going on with my life..and surely, there is some need for learning, attention and just some ability to set aside some time for that.  

It would also be one step at a time.  First figuring out which computer I want to use.  Making sure I have enough space that is free on the computer.. I have a few 2 TB drive computers, so space should be able to be found.. like clearing out most of the other stuff on the drive.. so the computer would mostly be used for only running the node and maybe just other basics, but not really running any other software on any regular basis.. and probably Macs, too... and then once a I had the computer selected and somewhat prepped by freeing the space, synching with Bitcoin Core or maybe some other software if I consider that to be preferable, and then maybe get used to interacting with that bitcoin core node prior to adding a lighting core.. so one step at a time and learning along the way, too.

Fun wee.. yeah.


Maybe by the time that I get to this next step of adding lightning (after starting with a core node), there might be some updates to make it easier for some of us less technically inclined (less technically adventurous) folks.


All of that seems to point to making sure to keep pretty low value in those kinds of wallets.


Yes.. makes sense.


Yes... at some point I may need to experiment a bit more with some of these, and surely there are going to be ongoing developments that might come closer to resolving some of the current trade-offs and/or lack of confidence to put very much funds on those wallets... not that I am ever expecting to get close to the same level of confidence in terms of some of the non-custodial on chain bitcoin wallets... but just having some confidence in terms of how to both attempt to use the lightning network and to recommend newbies to get started and to get familiar with the lighting network.. at least from an attempt to use it for transactions from time to time... a circle of folks with possibly more options.. if it is not too much work to get them set up (or too much work to even get myself set up).
 


It appears that so far that one is for Android only.


Yes.. my hypothetical possibly some day node..  

That said:

WoS for custodial
and
MUUN (then Phoenix, and Breez) for non-custodial

ALL offer an acceptable set of tradeoffs for me, if used rationally.

Glad you are here JJG, and glad you are working to set up a friend.

I personally consider non-custodial lightning to still be generally cutting edge.  There are a lot of user friendly options for wallets that are a compromise, but there are costs to using these.  I will explain.

There are basically three ways to do lightning transactions:

1.  Run your own node. (Zeus, Zap, Fullynoded <- on the phone ... Raspiblitz,Umbrel,DYI, etc for node)
Pluses:
-as non custodial as it gets
-high privacy
-you are running a bitcoin node and supporting the network (thankyouverymuch)
-FUN! WHEE!

Minuses:
-meh connectivity/success rate without many well funded channels
-technically too difficult for even the average IT professional to do well (lol)
-massive risks around maintenance and failure.

2.  Use a 'middleground' non-custodial wallet:(Muun, Phoenix, Breez)
Pluses:
-Non-custodial with asterisks*
-pretty damn easy to use
-connectivity is USUALLY decent. Payments tend to succeed.

* Various compromises are made to achieve this mix of benefits.  And each wallet has different tradeoffs.  Muun uses Turbo Channels, Phoenix requires a minimum balance and will close and open channels based on usage.  Breez has had the least good connectivity in my experience (that said, it's been a minute maybe I should test again)

Minuses:
-Fees can seem inconsistent (this is complicated I will explain below)+
-walletsecurity.com does not approve of any of these currently
-Connectivity/payment success can still be sketchy at times

+there are several reasons fees can be weird using these wallets.  First of all fees are how they make their money.  This is the same as a custodial wallet.  You are using THEIR node as the launching point.  Imagine running this sort of node.  It has to have incredible uptime, security, connectivity, liquidity, and so on. The wallets are basically making your software open a channel to their node (or possibly two for incoming payments) and are using that channel as a proxy to their node.  Also Muun, for example, can switch between layer 1 and 2 to make a payment work under certain circumstances. They are maximising payment success over all else...

3. Custodial wallets (WoS, Bluewallet, Others)
Pluses:
-Payments are usually successful.  HIGH rate.
-Easy to fund. Once funded all tx are lightning
-Fees are generally quite good.  Low value tx are zero/cheap, and high value are < on chain.

Minuses:
-NYKNYC

So I have two suggestions.

1.  Wallet of Satoshi
For this one you keep as much in it as you would a physical wallet with FIAT bills in it.  What's your comfort level of what you would carry there? 20k sats? 100k?  500k? (that's $50, $200, $1000?).  You pay a fee to put the money in... but that's it.  If you lose it because you want to advocate for trans-gay-anti-vax-catholic-russian-democrat-whatever and you get your funds confiscated?  Well... how likely is that?  And how much will that hurt? divided by how much does it cost to fund this wallet.

2. Muun
This wallet works well.  Has a well connected node,  I like the turbo channels tradeoff, and that you can avoid it if you want to.  It is simple for non tech people.  And it can surprise you with fees now and then because of the compromises it makes as well as the ... well... fees it charges.

So until the middle ground wallets get UX/UI as good as WoS, those are what I recommend.

Also... I think it gets good as companies are able to fine tune value/tradeoffs.

*****POSSIBLE SLEEPER*****
"Simple Bitcoin Wallet" is a non custodial lightning wallet with reproducible (by walletsecurity.com) builds!  I have not used this wallet all that much.  Good?  Bad?  I dunno.

+++++Caveats+++++
Bluewallet can be used with your own node.  so it is not completel "custodial".

Last I checked (a good while ago), the on-chain wallet was non-custodial, while the Lightning was custodial; maybe that's there the confusion is coming from. It's entirely possible that they switched everything to custodial, though.

That would be new to me. Blockstream has this (reproducible) wallet: https://walletscrutiny.com/android/com.greenaddress.greenbits_android_wallet/

Your best options are probably still Breez and Phoenix; maybe consider building them yourself directly from source, that way you circumvent the risk that exists when the provided binary differs from the source code.
Do keep in mind they're both Lightning-only wallets.

On mobile apps, I always recommend keeping very minimal amounts, anyway.
Your friend could actually also just spin up a Linux VM on their desktop computer and install this 'full node install guide': https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/guide-full-node-opensuse-153-bitcoind-electrs-c-lightning-rtl-5366854
In RTL web interface, you get access to an on-chain and Lightning wallet, as well as of course getting the whole power and abilities of Bitcoin Core and electrs.

Well, non-custodial and non-reproducible are two different things. Of course, the latter wallet could also be custodial (as we can't verify it), while continuing to push code on GitHub that makes it appear non-custodial. I personally doubt that the developers maintain 2 code bases; one that is published online to give this false sense of security, while a second code-base is used for the various provided builds.

That said, sadly I can't give you a good answer. Personally, I use Core Lightning as explained in the guide above, and interface it from everywhere through Tor.

I just finished looking through the whole of this thread, which I think took me about a week (jeez), and I am not even claiming that I understood everything.

I understand that Fillippone started this thread with an intent to mostly talk about the less technical subject matters around lightning network - while at the same time, it is not necessarily easy to completely stay away from technical angles which have come up several times in this thread and when we are trying to figure out how much we might want to get into trying to use lightning network and to become more familiar with some of the interfaces - maybe including wallet interfaces?

In recent times, I have been looking at some lightning wallets because I was trying to set up another person who is even less technical than me (if you can believe that?) with a non-custodial wallet that might be able to have both on chain abilities to transact and also lightning network capabilities. 

So yeah, I have been trying to figure out if there might be some best practices in regards to making sure that the wallet is credible, user-friendly, and having an ability to back up your own keys, whether it is to back up onchain keys or to back up the lightning network keys.

The user who I am trying to help is running a mac and also has an iphone and an Ipad.. so I was attempting to specialize in IOS applications. 

Maybe in about the past few weeks, I had gotten started and even set myself and the other person up with BlueWallet because I erroneously thought (and had heard) that the BlueWallet was non-custodial, but then when I looked at  https://walletscrutiny.com/ as had been suggested by n0nce in the below-attached post, I saw that BlueWallet came up as custodial - like they had claimed to have been custodial in earlier times, but the walletscrutiny team determined that they were not non-custodial as BlueWallet had claimed... I also thought that BlueWallet was somehow connected to Blockstream, and I am still not very clear about that, either..


My use of the walletscrutiny service caused me to search further to see if there might be some other wallet app that I could use on IOS that could achieve my objective in terms of having open source software and also to be non-custodial... but also to be able to have both lightning network and a bitcoin main chain wallet app within the same wallet app.

I had also recalled seeing an earlier post from n0nce recommending IOS apps:


However, when I run each of these wallets through the walletscrutiny service, I come up with their code not being verifiable:

Breez - shows a building error.. so in that sense the open source cannot  be verified

Phoenix - shows the code is not reproducible which is about the same as the conclusion about breez

muun - seems to have the same non reproducibility issue


The question for me is what to do.  Maybe just use one of those services and consider it as if it were custodial rather than non-custodial.. and keep only a relatively small amount of value on any (or all of them) as cAPS had been considering just a few posts back - until some better wallet is verified for IOS that meets my objectives?

Accordingly, from the walletscrutiny reviews and my current limited level of knowledge on the topic, I am not even sure if it is worth it to switch away from BlueWallet until maybe it can be resolved that one of the IOS wallets is able to get some kind of verifiable open source wallet software for one of them in order to be enough of a justification to move away from BlueWallet to one of the others that are actually verified as open source and non-custodial. 

I will admit that walletscrutiny seems to be more critical of BlueWallet because BlueWallet claims to be non-custodial when it is not... but in the end if the open source software is not verifiable on any of the IOS lightning network wallets that I know about, then I am not sure if that puts any of those other IOS wallets (such as breez, phoenix or muun) at any kind of superior security position as compared to BlueWallet.. so in the end, all of the ones that I have seen so far seem to require some level of trust.

Any recent updates or new in this direction, or do I (we?) just continue to watch the space for ongoing developments?

Jameson Lopp observes River observed  a progress in the Lightning Network efficacy. 



Insights From the 4th Largest Lightning Network Node

Nice, complete report with a lot of info to be dug out.

Finally:




It's mainly big nodes, but as we have seen, usage is increasing also for smaller users.

Bullish.

Cool! I like these:

Lately, in discussions such as here, I started thinking again about second- or higher-layer on- and off-ramps, second-layer settlements and stuff like that.
It's actually possible that in the future it will be very uncommon to use the blockchain directly. That's why I like this one a lot.

Please, be my guest next time you are around in Italy.
I will buy you a coffe using satoshi's.
Just for having the fonder memories of the most expensive coffe ever, when we will be old(er).
/J

we have broken through the 5000BTC🥳🤩

It is refreshing to speak with someone of a similar mind on this.  The community is so polarized in so many ways.  Sometimes justifiably.  But often just because we are still immature.

I think if you took all the people who do not care about decentralized consensus, or define it too sloppily (ETH, BCH, shitcoiners in general,) and add to them all the hardcore MAXIs (run my own node.  Only use cast iron to cook etc) Then you have 98% of the VOCAL "crypto" people out there.  I do not know how many like us there are who see the nuance.  The ones who see it is not the BANKS that Bitcoin challenges, but the CENTRAL banks.  The ones who might run a node, but also use Wallet of Satoshi. And the ones who realize the vast majority of people who use Bitcoin will do so without understanding deeply why it matters.

But in this case common sense is the key.  People will trust others with their money, simply because there is value there that (hopefully) outweighs the risk.  Just as people will self-custody because of the value in that!  But let us not pretend there is no risk there either!

I buy you a coffee, sir.

You’d be amazed of how many people I do argue about this.

People telling me you are not a true bitcoiner because you don’t self custody, you don’t run a full node, because you don’t safeguard your privacy.
Those are beautiful things. But the point it is an option.
You can choose from the wide spectrum. That’s the beauty.

Absolutely true!

I have often said this:  The revolution is not that you HAVE TO... but that you CAN.

We will get there.  I am sure.

What can I say.
You are right.
Using bitcoin intermediaries (wallets, exchanges etc) as bank accounts will have dire consequences, sooner or later.
But the. reality is that we are so early, and not everyone has the required technical skill, or even the cultural skill, to proceed on a trustless, privacy respectful line of action with bitcoin.

It's very difficult for everyone starting to use bitcoin in the correct way. The most common approach is getting some choices, some of them horrible, and then working out to fix them one by one.
Using custodial wallets, it's one of those horrible mistakes, but it will also be one of the first where users usually realize they are going down the wrong path.

Matt Odell, the lovable curmudgeonly idealist and privacy buff is making some fairly good criticisms of this stat.   And I think he has a great argument as far as the land of perfect goes.  I have long been the Bitcoin Fundamental Iconoclast (not even counting my interest in Monero) because of my nuanced opinion on "Be your own bank™" as an ideal.  It is just not possible.  There are too many of us.  There are too many who are technically challenged. Not to mention being your own bank is risky as hell.

The error, in my opinion is the idealistic thought that because Bitcoin removes the absolute NEED for a trusted third party that we should only build structures that also eliminate that need.  But the nuance is that we have the choice.  To employ however little or however much trust we want in whatever scenario.  Having a "bank", which is what WoS really is, is a helpful bit of trust for many.  The UX is better with WoS, no one has to run a node, or even worry about using a compromise wallet like Muun, Breez or Phoenix etc which generally have less smooth user experience.  

On the other hand Odell is right.  WoS is a huge target for the powers that be, thieves and accidents.  And essentially an unregulated bank that could steal all the funds whenever they want without any help from any governments at all.  So my 20k sats I have in there are a risk.

But therein lies my nuanced answer to the problem.  WoS is truly a WALLET.  In the sense that I am not usually going to be walking around with $20k USD stuffed into one of my back pockets for a night on the town, I am also not going to carry much cash in my WoS.  I have already decided, that if I were to visit El Salvador, for example, I would likely load up two (perhaps three) lightning wallets.  I would use Zeus with some funds on and off chain, enough for the trip. But I would also have WoS with maybe $100 in it at any time for using when we are out buying pupusas, coffee and renting boogie boards.  If using Zeus worked well enough?  Well, I could just use that.  But if not, I would be glad enough to have WoS work for fast, cheap, trouble free payments.  Perhaps if I were feeling adventurous I would try a middle road like Muun as well.  

But this is notable in my opinion because it istrue for someone with reasonable skills at "being his own bank".  Even in spite of that I would want to make certain compromises to my mix of convenience and sovereignty.  In fact that is part of what sovereignty is.  The ability to control ones own destiny and decisions.

So people using Wallet of Satoshi as a BANK ACCOUNT are making a big mistake.  And perhaps that is the meat of Matt's argument.  That folks in El Salvador and Africa using it as their primary financial storage system are at risk of the eventual rug pull...  Me losing $100 on vacation?  Not exactly the best thing to happen in a day... but a person in Nigeria losing most of their savings?  Kinda a different ballgame.

One last though before some grump I have on ignore takes up his usual canard.  ALL of these statements are ABSOLUTELY as true with BTC on the base layer as they are with lightning.  The Lightning part just adds some spice to the meal, so to speak...

I also think this stuff gets sorted out over time...  but it might take a while.

It’s not so common to see statistics on the usage of LN, actual usage, not static measures like capacity or channels, so I think it’s important to report those here:



More than the absolute measure, I think the growth it is important.

We are so early. I guess that being able to reproduce what we have today on a decentralised way on the Bitcoin upper layer would be and incredible feat. Then moving to more sensible project would be the next logical steps.

As I just said, this is not the base layer where you must be extremely cautious when developing. There it’s reckless experimentation.

Sure, it's nice to see. Just sad that RGB was kind of thrown under the bus in the process.
As well as very dubious 'bitcoinizing the dollar' (tethered assets? ugh..  ) claims. Nothing against 'virtual assets' on Lightning, but something like Tether on LN? That means introduction of a 'bank'...