I think sometimes bitcoiners end up being so stuck with purisms that is making everything very complicated:
Custodial to me means, that my coins are under a custodian. If I send my coins to strike, those four points you mentioned would have a No as an answer but ALSO, that company would literally own my coins.
And to me that is a very different story.. for instance. With most LN wallets that you would claim "you control your channels" you don't because you can't open channels with any node. in most, those channels are opened directly with a preselected node. Would that make them custodial?
In most wallets, not just lightning but all other wallets, you can't use your node, and you can't even select which node... you can only use their node.... Does that make them custodial?
Most wallets you can't install without google/apple, does that make them custodial? what does that even have to do with custody?
So if we start calling Custodial service for those points instead of differentiating who actually owns the keys, It's just dishonest.
With Muun, you own the coins. You have a github repo that is open where you can just put the info that is given to you and you recover all your balance.
So I could list things that would make only Bitcoin Core the Self Custody wallets and all others would classify as custodial... but would that even make sense?.
I think we need to call:
Custodial: If you own or not own the coins. If someone else other than you can move the coins. You don't get a bip39? ok man, you can do better than that. once we start having tons of miniscript wallets with tons of complex output descriptors, then bip39 won't be enough. So the bar needs to be set on whether you are the only one that can move coins or not
Full Sovereignty or something like that: Wallets that give you full flexibility.. where they track nothing from you, where they allow you to connect to whichever node you chose... where you can select and customize your LND node..
Hardcore level: would be the wallet that would also allow you to create customized stuff at terminal level etc
But mixing up Real Custodial wallets that owns your coins directly with Muun just because of what you listed above is just making me hesitate when reading the email from the substack
nico / Nicolas ₿ ⚡️ 🇦🇷🧉🤙💜
npub1qq…lsu7e
2023-04-13 11:54:37 GMT
in reply to nevent1q…gnek
Author Public Key
npub1qqqqqqpn745uwp5ummzhtjsqqkg6xxp3awmgmcswm8ahs03lc2rshlsu7ePublished at
2023-04-13 11:54:37 GMTEvent JSON
{
"id": "c4b78ac6a0c68cc80fb096c6186f92d62e732f262fe0b095e5c10cf728891c28",
"pubkey": "0000000033f569c7069cdec575ca000591a31831ebb68de20ed9fb783e3fc287",
"created_at": 1681386877,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"f9acb0b034c4c1177e985f14639f317ef0fedee7657c060b146ee790024317ec",
"",
"DarthCoin ₿⚡️"
],
[
"e",
"972e8bc40c65b460e85506ad3334ec24ebde2cdfb6fd04de9648a62c7862bf23",
"wss://offchain.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"e",
"5401254aae8413f32d94036015f49c22ec807ba0603631625ebee625c8221041",
"wss://offchain.pub",
"root"
],
[
"client",
"coracle"
]
],
"content": "I think sometimes bitcoiners end up being so stuck with purisms that is making everything very complicated:\n\nCustodial to me means, that my coins are under a custodian. If I send my coins to strike, those four points you mentioned would have a No as an answer but ALSO, that company would literally own my coins. \n\nAnd to me that is a very different story.. for instance. With most LN wallets that you would claim \"you control your channels\" you don't because you can't open channels with any node. in most, those channels are opened directly with a preselected node. Would that make them custodial?\n\nIn most wallets, not just lightning but all other wallets, you can't use your node, and you can't even select which node... you can only use their node.... Does that make them custodial? \n\nMost wallets you can't install without google/apple, does that make them custodial? what does that even have to do with custody?\n\nSo if we start calling Custodial service for those points instead of differentiating who actually owns the keys, It's just dishonest. \n\n\nWith Muun, you own the coins. You have a github repo that is open where you can just put the info that is given to you and you recover all your balance.\n\nSo I could list things that would make only Bitcoin Core the Self Custody wallets and all others would classify as custodial... but would that even make sense?. \n\nI think we need to call:\nCustodial: If you own or not own the coins. If someone else other than you can move the coins. You don't get a bip39? ok man, you can do better than that. once we start having tons of miniscript wallets with tons of complex output descriptors, then bip39 won't be enough. So the bar needs to be set on whether you are the only one that can move coins or not\n\nFull Sovereignty or something like that: Wallets that give you full flexibility.. where they track nothing from you, where they allow you to connect to whichever node you chose... where you can select and customize your LND node.. \n\nHardcore level: would be the wallet that would also allow you to create customized stuff at terminal level etc\n\nBut mixing up Real Custodial wallets that owns your coins directly with Muun just because of what you listed above is just making me hesitate when reading the email from the substack",
"sig": "2379ad532312c66bb829660a1e2ee052ffa198cc68f407473941ba41ef69d2447c8fef2b1d37fbb85fa9142f93de09fb8de24e270002d165531687bf3719e89e"
}