Conducting a second trial run of self-custodial Lightning wallets in Zimbabwe, a region bereft of wallets developed by Africans, I seek to determine the most reliable option for rural areas. The challenge stems from the newness and complexity of Lightning, as building mobile apps that operate a network node on one’s phone stands as no trivial task. My educational mission is centered on recommending tools for everyday users looking to execute small payments, the reliability of which could determine Bitcoin’s viability for them.
Exploring Self-Custody Lightning Wallets and Objectives
In 2023, only Breez and Phoenix were on offer. This time around, the field expanded to also include Blixt, Mutiny, Green, Zeus, and Phoenix, along with the custodial Wallet of Satoshi for comparative analysis. The dynamic nature of the wallets required a series of adjustments, particularly the manual installation of Mutiny and unlocking Greenlight via BlockStream for the Green wallet.
The goal is simple: identify the most efficient wallets for sending and receiving bitcoin in a reliable, user-friendly, and expeditious manner, while juxtaposing the associated costs. In addition, exploring the most economical method to open a channel via Bitcoin, Lightning, or Liquid will help elucidate the best approach.
Setting Up and Challenges
Prior to embarking to rural areas for testing under suboptimal conditions, I ensured a smooth set-up by opening a Lightning payments channel in Harare. Given the internet connectivity challenges, even with reputedly fast internet, it took substantial effort to install the apps, secure private keys, and become an integral part of the Lightning network.
Initial Channel Opening
For consistency, I adhered to a stringent test protocol for each wallet. Through a Lightning payment, I opened a channel on all wallets, except for Blixt, which solely offered the on-chain option. This discrepancy became evident when the first transaction confirmation required several hours, causing an unforeseen delay.
Comparing Bitcoin, Lightning, and Liquid
Exploring various methods to open a channel, I employed the use of on-chain bitcoin or transferring Lightning directly from another wallet. Furthermore, I investigated the merits of swapping to Lightning from Liquid and the possibility of buying inbound liquidity.
Comparing Costs to Open a Channel
A precise comparison of network fees, transaction costs, and service fees across different methods of channel opening is crucial to inform users’ choices.
Comparing Lightning Wallets in Real World Scenarios
During a time when the average fee rate was 110 sat/vByte ($0.000054), the cost of opening channels varied, with Lightning wallet being the cheapest option for channel opening. Using Liquid and Boltz resulted in slightly higher costs, making a unique comparison in the realm of cryptocurrency wallets.
Variations in available balances after opening channels also surfaced, with Zeus having the lowest balance at 52,500 sats and Green having the highest at 97,500 sats. Surprisingly, Green showcased a cost of only 3.5%, while Zeus was the most expensive, spending 48.5% of the funds in channel operation.
Mutiny emerged with the largest channel capacity and the highest receivable amount at 100,000 sats, while also being the second most expensive. However, Green faced a drawback with a limited incoming capacity of only 4,133 sats.
Setting the Stage for Testing
Choosing the ideal test location for these real-world scenarios was paramount, leading to a journey through scorching heat and natural landscapes about 30 km outside the capital of Harare. Despite the breathtaking blooming flowers during the rainy season, the focus shifted to establishing a stable internet signal for the crucial test. Amidst inconsistent network coverage, a secluded shaded spot provided the ideal location, where devices like the Google Pixel 4, iPhone 13 Pro, and iPad Air were prepared for a rigorous and comprehensive evaluation.
Proceeding with the Tests
Conducting a speed test in a serene natural setting unveiled download and upload results amidst the challenge of large ants, revealing fascinating insights into wallet performances.
As the testing unfolded, the reliability and speed of various wallets were brought to light, demonstrating distinct capabilities and limitations.
Unveiling Wallet Performance
Delving into the nuances of sending and receiving transactions across different Lightning wallets offered intriguing revelations, highlighting the reliability, speed, and costs associated with each platform.
Deciphering Wallet Costs
Evaluating the costs associated with opening channels and executing payments underscored significant variations across the range of Lightning wallets, pinpointing distinct affordability and reliability metrics.
Assessing Payment Reliability
An in-depth assessment of payment reliability and speed exposed noteworthy disparities, positioning certain wallets as stalwarts of dependable and swift transactions in real-world conditions.
Unraveling Payment Speed
Unraveling the intricate web of payment speed unveiled clear winners in the realm of Lightning wallets, shedding light on the peerless swiftness of specific platforms. These findings presented a testament to the robustness of various wallets in navigating adverse conditions.
Insights of Self-Custodial Lightning Wallets in Rural Zimbabwe
Underlying Assessments and Performance Inconsistencies
During a comprehensive evaluation of self-custodial Lightning wallets in the rural Zimbabwean setting, several key observations surfaced. Notably, Phoenix and the Wallet of Satoshi demonstrated erratic performance that hindered their reliability. In contrast, Mutiny and Green outshone their competitors, operating satisfactorily when functioning correctly.
Distinctive Features and Variances
A critical scrutiny of the wallets’ characteristics, particularly focusing on user-friendliness and security aspects, revealed noteworthy distinctions. Evaluations encompassed the process of wallet backup, open-source nature, and the guidance for implementing top-notch security standards without compromising user actions.
Wallet Backup Comparison
A focal point of assessment revolved around the backup process, with a preference for 12-word seed phrases due to their striking balance between security and user convenience. Green and Phoenix adopted 12-word seeds, while Blixt, Mutiny, and Zeus leaned towards 24-word seeds.
The introduction of “forced backup” during the wallet’s setup, as exemplified by Green’s approach, was deemed a commendable design feature. In contrast, permitting the copying of the seed phrase to the device’s clipboard, as observed in some other wallets, posed potential security risks and reckless user behavior.
Cloud Backup Considerations
Cloud backups, despite their convenience, raised pertinent concerns regarding potential security vulnerabilities and accessibility issues, especially in regions where access to platforms like Google Drive or iCloud is limited. The varying approaches to cloud backup among the wallets further underscored their diverse stances on data security.
App Lock Preferences
Emphasizing the need for heightened security, the assessment also delved into the provision of PIN, password, or pattern-based locks for securing the Bitcoin wallets. Notably, Blixt, Mutiny, Green, and Zeus offered these security measures, while Phoenix primarily relied on biometric options.
Stand-alone On-chain Wallet
The presence of a separate on-chain Bitcoin wallet within the wallets garnered attention for its inherent utility and convenience. This feature, present in Blixt, Mutiny, Green, and Zeus, catered to the users’ preference for streamlined Bitcoin and Lightning functionalities.
Coin Control and UTXO Management
With a keen eye on emerging trends in transaction fees, the evaluation highlighted the absence of coin control and UTXO management capabilities in the tested wallets. While Green offered limited coin control in its desktop version, this functionality remains unavailable on mobile platforms.
Lightning Address Functionality
An exploration of Lightning address functionality brought attention to innovative features such as the Lightning address format and its implications for asynchronous Lightning payments. While Blixt and Zeus ventured into related experimental solutions, the widespread adoption of Lightning addresses remained an evolving area.
Channel Features
Phoenix emerged as the sole provider of auto channels, streamlining the channel setup and management process for enhanced user convenience. Additionally, the wallets’ flexibility in fee settings and channel management capabilities provided insights into their overall suitability for user preferences and operational requirements.
Subsequent Urban Area Evaluation and Outcomes
Returning to an urban setting for a secondary evaluation phase unearthed further performance discrepancies among the wallets. This phase shed light on the experimental nature of Green’s mode, challenges faced by Blixt in syncing to the blockchain, and the prolonged setup process encountered with Zeus.
Conclusive Considerations and Ranking Rationalization
From an educational standpoint, Phoenix and Mutiny emerged as the preferred choices, with their respective strengths in reliability and user-friendliness. While Green showcased multifaceted functionalities, its glitch-ridden Lightning payments detracted from its overall appeal. Blixt and Zeus, tailored for advanced users, failed to deliver expected performance in the assessment.
Ultimately, the optimal selection of a Lightning wallet necessitates a thorough understanding of individual goals and feature requisites, underscoring the significance of informed decision-making in this domain.
Final Thoughts and Observations
In conclusion, the comprehensive evaluation of self-custodial Lightning wallets offers valuable insights into their performance, reliability, and user-centric attributes. The varying strengths and limitations of Phoenix, Mutiny, Green, Zeus, and Blixt underscore the nuanced landscape of Lightning wallet offerings and the importance of informed decision-making in selecting the most suitable option.