There is a huge difference.
Even custodial lightning allows you to participate in the Bitcoin economy. It allows you to interact with fully sovereign merchants for example. It gives you more options.
And optionality is a form of freedom.
Login to reply
Replies (6)
PayPal cashapp and venmo are also "more options" that allow you to interact with more different merchants.
and if optionality is a form of freedom, by that yardstick they offer orders of magnitude more "freedom" than custodial lightning does.
and in what way is a merchant "sovereign" if they rely on a third-party custodial service?
It is amazing that this is what we are debating here…
These people have lightning derangement syndrome and do not live in the real world.
Also there is this weird obsession that everything needs to be decentralized and self custodial.
Centralization and convenience makes sense for a lot of the things we need to live. Decentralization only makes sense for a few things imo…issuance of money supply and free speech are the most important
> centralization and convenience makes sense for a lot of things we need to live
Like what? Do you have an example of something in life where we directly benefit from centralization? And dont conflate centralization with convenience, we posit that you dont need centralization to make life easier. Can you give examples to the contrary?
> Even custodial lightning allows you to participate in the Bitcoin economy. It allows you to interact with fully sovereign merchants for example. It gives you more options.
Only if the custodian allows it, that is, it is no different from a regular bank, which, if it decides to allow you, is the only time you will be able to use "your" "money".
I thought like that too. Turns out, our world is not fair, and majority forces solutions on minority. So no, such solution is not possible. The only way is to induce fear or just force enough of society, to not use centralized stuff. Then it's possible to achive something similar to freedom.
Options are good *for people.* The problem with custodial lightning is not that people shouldn't have access to options. The problem is that people want the promise of decentralized lightning to work and it doesnt, so they post rationalize custodial lightning. Its sunk cost fallacy more than anything. The nefarious ever present "they", those that seek to take away our options, love to give us options that enable them to take things away later. Custodial lightning *will* devolve into fractional reserve banking entirely. If it can happen it will happen and incentives are outcomes always.