Author: Thomas Voegtlin 2023-08-18 11:54:55+00:00
Published on: 2023-08-18T11:54:55+00:00
In an email sent by Bastien TEINTURIER, he addresses the issue of conflating two roles in the concept of a "wallet provider." He clarifies that there are two entities involved: the one that distributes the wallet application and the one that has channels with the user. In the case of Phoenix, users are not able to open channels with arbitrary nodes, therefore these entities are the same. This may be the reason why the loss of reputation is seen as a sufficient deterrent.Bastien raises an important question: If Phoenix allowed users to open channels and have backup stored with arbitrary nodes, would it still be considered an attack that these nodes cannot reasonably attempt? He personally believes that the reputation loss would harm the software distributor more than the lightning node operator.He wants to make it clear that he doesn't have any objection to the fact that Phoenix users cannot connect to arbitrary nodes. In fact, he suggests that a similar development model should be adopted for Electrum, considering the lack of certain solutions such as OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK. However, when discussing protocol improvements, he believes it would be beneficial to consider a more decentralized model where users have the freedom to connect to any node without needing permission from their software provider.In conclusion, Bastien's email highlights the distinction between the roles of a wallet provider and the importance of considering a more decentralized model in protocol improvements.
Updated on: 2023-08-19T01:45:40.013196+00:00