I recently set out on a second rigorous evaluation of self-custodial Lightning wallets in Zimbabwe. My goal was to ascertain which wallet performed the best, particularly in rural areas where such tools are less commonly appraised. Notably, none of the currently available self-custodial wallets in the region have been developed by Africans. Consequently, they are seldom utilized or tested in this context. Furthermore, the intricacies of Lightning, still in its early stages, make it challenging to build mobile apps that incorporate a node of the network on a smartphone.
My primary aim is to ascertain the efficacy of these tools and, as an educator, recommend reliable options to everyday users seeking to facilitate small payments. I firmly believe in the importance of reliable tools to ensure that people do not erroneously conclude that Bitcoin is unsuitable for their needs.
I opened my first Lightning channel on the BLW app in January 2019. While I am accustomed to testing new tools and encountering challenges and bugs, everyday users may not be as forgiving. Therefore, my recommendations are based on personal testing to guarantee reliability for potential users.
Evaluation of Lightning Wallets and Objectives
In 2023, only two self-custody Lightning wallets, namely Breez and Phoenix, were available. However, during my latest assessment, I was presented with a wider array of choices, including Blixt, Mutiny, Green, Zeus, and Phoenix, as well as the Wallet of Satoshi—albeit a custodial wallet. While I was already familiar with Phoenix and had used Zeus connected to my Voltage node previously, Mutiny, Blixt, and the Lightning integration in Blockstream’s Green wallet were new additions during the last few months. All these wallets have been undergoing substantial changes and will continue to evolve.
As part of the evaluation, I manually downloaded Mutiny and installed a special .apk file for use on Android phones. In the case of the Green wallet, I requested Blockstream to enable its experimental Greenlight feature to facilitate my assessment.
The objective was to identify the most proficient wallets for sending and receiving bitcoin reliably, swiftly, and with ease, while also comparing the associated costs.
Setting Up the Wallets
Prior to embarking on my assessment in rural areas (designed to test the wallets under suboptimal conditions), I configured the wallets and initiated a Lightning payments channel in Harare. This planning was necessary as low internet signal challenges were anticipated. Drawing on my year-long experience in Zimbabwe, I understood that even with decent internet speeds, the upload and download of small files, such as 2 MB, can be problematic.
To address this, I utilized the internet at a friend’s residence, which boasts the fastest internet provider in Harare—Liquid. However, this service comes at a premium cost, amounting to $300 per month for unlimited usage. Despite the fast internet speed—resulting in download speeds of 92.7 Mbps and upload speeds of 14.6 Mbps—installation of the apps, securing of private keys, and opening a Lightning channel—essential for network participation—took some time.
Opening a Channel
To ensure consistency, I followed a standard test protocol for each wallet. On December 26 and 27, I installed the wallets and transferred 100,000 sats (~$42 at current prices) to open a Lightning channel. A channel on the Lightning Network requires two transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain to be set up. This process ensures that the channel remains connected to the blockchain, thereby maintaining the equivalence of bitcoin on the Bitcoin blockchain and bitcoin on the Lightning network—both are of the same value, representing the same unit with no distinction in value.
Determining the Most Cost-Effective Method for Channel Setup: Bitcoin, Lightning, or Liquid
Several methods were considered for opening a channel, including sending on-chain bitcoin, transferring Lightning directly from another wallet, or performing a swap from Liquid. Each approach had implications on the setup speed and the fees involved.
Bitcoin on the Blockchain
In executing the Lightning payment to open a channel on all wallets, with the exception of Blixt, I found that Blixt exclusively offered the on-chain option (other than liquidity providers). Interestingly, Blixt’s channel opening required a second on-chain transaction, unlike other wallets wherein the second transaction was concealed, enabling immediate channel opening upon the confirmation of the first transaction. Consequently, with Blixt, I experienced a delay resulting from a protracted confirmation process for the second on-chain transaction. This situation necessitated a return to my friend’s house to complete the channel opening. It remains ambiguous as to how other wallets would have fared under these conditions.
Lightning and Liquid
For the channel openings on Green and Zeus, I leveraged Liquid and executed a swap via Boltz.exchange to Lightning due to elevated transaction fees at the time. In such circumstances, opening a channel from Liquid proved to be a more cost-effective alternative. Notably, Liquid operates as a sidechain of Bitcoin, denoted by its unit—L-BTC.
This simply means that if 0.1 BTC is pegged into Liquid, the ensuing amount of 0.1 L-BTC holds the same value as BTC. Compared to self-custodial Lightning, there is a higher level of trust required when utilizing Liquid, necessitating the involvement of intermediaries for the peg-in and peg-out process, and reliance on a federation of 15 companies as the signers for Liquid transactions. Conversely, the operation of Bitcoin and Lightning obviates the need for trust in any intermediaries. The advantages of the Liquid blockchain include faster transaction speeds, enhanced privacy, and currently lower fees compared to those on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Cost Analysis for Channel Opening
I conducted a comprehensive comparison of network fees, transaction costs, and service fees applicable to the various channel opening methods.
The cost of the incoming transaction for opening the channel was found to be the highest with Blixt, as I utilized on-chain bitcoin.
Uncovering the Lightning Network Wallet Performance
Picture this: in a scorching heat, navigating through rocks, grass, bushes, and trees, 30 km out of the capital city Harare, Zimbabwe, an intrepid explorer embarked on a mission to test the performance of various Lightning Network wallets. Armed with devices and an unwavering determination, the journey unveiled surprising disparities and unexpected triumphs in the realm of digital transactions.
Setting the Stage for Testing
After meticulously configuring the wallets, the intrepid explorer ventured to an unconventional location in Zimbabwe. Battling inconsistent network coverage, steadfast efforts led to the identification of a stable signal, enabling the commencement of rigorous payment testing using Google Pixel 4, iPhone 13 Pro, and iPad Air.
Trials and Tribulations of Testing
Perched on rocks, surrounded by nature’s bounty, the tester encountered fluctuating internet speeds, an assortment of wallet responses, and the resilience of the Phoenix wallet, which shone brightly amid challenging conditions. As each payment attempt unfolded, the quirks and capabilities of different wallets were laid bare, offering unexpected insights into their operational efficiency.
Exploring the Wallet Landscape
Charting the performance of wallets against the backdrop of Zimbabwe’s unique terrains unraveled an intriguing tapestry of successes and setbacks. The explorer’s arduous quest laid bare noteworthy differences in the reliability, speed, and costs associated with various Lightning Network wallets.
Payment Dynamics Under Scrutiny
While the costs of sending and receiving payments yielded marginal differences across wallets, the exorbitant contrast in channel opening fees emerged as a pivotal discovery. The Green wallet’s modest fee requirements stood in stark juxtaposition to Zeus, the pocket-draining heavyweight in this regard.
Reliability and Resilience
Amid the tumultuous terrain and temperamental network conditions in Zimbabwe, the Phoenix and Wallet of Satoshi wallets proved to be reliable bastions, consistently navigating payment conduits with unparalleled dependability. In contrast, Green wallet’s unimpressive track record underscored its susceptibility to transactional challenges.
Unforeseen Triumphs
In an unexpected turn of events, the Phoenix wallet emerged as the undisputed frontrunner in the realm of payment speed, triumphing even in the face of daunting connectivity limitations. The explorer’s prowess in executing transactions, even under duress, underscored this wallet’s remarkable alacrity.
Unveiling the World of Self-Custodial Lightning Wallets
Assessment of Features and Differences
Exploring the realm of self-custodial Lightning wallets provides intriguing insights into their distinctive features and operational disparities. An evaluation was conducted, focusing on user-friendliness and security aspects, delving into crucial considerations such as wallet backup, cloud backup, app lock preferences, standalone on-chain wallet functionality, coin control, UTXO management, and Lightning address functionality.
Wallet Backup Prerequisites
An essential benchmark revolved around the wallet backup process, particularly favoring 12-word seed phrases, which offer a balance between security and practicality. Green and Phoenix aligned with this approach, while Blixt, Mutiny, and Zeus opted for 24-word seeds. Notably, an exemplary trait referred to as “forced backup” was only offered by Green, ensuring a seamless adoption of high-security measures during the wallet opening process. Conversely, the potential compromise of funds’ security through seed phrase copying was observed in other wallets, with Green and Zeus impeccably adhering to stringent security practices.
Cloud Backup Considerations
Notably, opinions diverged on the desirability of cloud backups on the user side, due to the dual nature of convenience and potential security risks. Various wallets exhibited diverse approaches to this feature, with explicit offerings and recommendations.
App Lock Preferences for Enhanced Security
Amid the quest for fortified security, the provision of PIN, password, or pattern lock added a layer of protection, offered by a few select wallets. While some wallets embraced this security enhancement, others are urged to reassess their strategy, particularly in situations where users may face coercion.
Stand-Alone On-Chain Wallets
One appealing trait under consideration was the provision of a segregated on-chain Bitcoin wallet. This functionality streamlines the user experience, with select wallets opting to integrate this feature, offering a single app catering to both Bitcoin and Lightning needs.
Coin Control and UTXO Management
As transaction fees escalate, the relevance of coin control and UTXO management amplifies, yet none of the tested wallets provided this capability. Despite this prevalent limitation, calls for enhanced transaction cost management are ever more pertinent.
Lightning Address Functionality
A diverse array of approaches was evident, with varying capabilities related to Lightning addresses. Notably, the performance repercussions of certain functionalities, as well as potential alternatives, fueled further discourse.
Insights from Urban Area Testing with LTE Connection
Upon transitioning to urban settings with LTE connectivity, further scrutiny was undertaken. Subsequent assessments revealed nuances in performance, shedding light on discrepancies in operational efficacy amid distinct environmental contexts.
Comprehensive Rankings of Lightning Self-Custody Solutions
A comprehensive overview was articulated from an educational standpoint, outlining the top picks based on extensive evaluations. While addressing the performance, reliability, and user-friendliness, the rankings provided a holistic perspective on the standout attributes and shortcomings of each wallet.
Closing Thoughts
Ultimately, the intricate evaluation of self-custodial Lightning wallets has unearthed multifaceted insights pertinent to 2024. From performance differentials to security features, the assessment offers a compelling narrative and pragmatic counsel for potential investors and users.