I recently undertook a comprehensive study of self-custodial Lightning wallets in Zimbabwe, with a particular focus on their suitability for rural areas. Notably, none of the available self-custodial wallets are developed by Africans, and their usage in the region remained obscure due to the newness and complexity of Lightning and the technological challenges associated with running a node on a mobile app.
As an educator specializing in Bitcoin, my aim was to assess the reliability and usability of these tools for everyday users, especially for small transactions. It is crucial that these tools are robust and user-friendly to ensure wide adoption and dispel any misconceptions about Bitcoin.
My name is Anita Posch, and I am a well-regarded Bitcoin educator, author, and founder of various Bitcoin-focused initiatives. I have been actively engaged in the Bitcoin community, and my experience extends to testing new tools and technologies, which enables me to provide informed recommendations to users.
Overview of Wallets Tested and Goal
During this year’s study, I examined a wider range of self-custody Lightning wallets. The wallets included in the test were Blixt, Mutiny, Green, Zeus, Phoenix, and the custodial Wallet of Satoshi. Each of these wallets has been undergoing significant changes and will continue to evolve, reflecting the dynamic nature of the cryptocurrency space.
My goal was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of these wallets in sending and receiving Bitcoin in a reliable, fast, and user-friendly manner, in addition to analyzing the associated costs.
The Initial Set-Up
Prior to my field test in rural areas, I set up the wallets and initiated a Lightning payments channel in Harare. This preparation was crucial, as I anticipated challenges related to low internet signal in rural Zimbabwe. Drawing from my experience, even with decent internet speed, file uploads and downloads could be problematic in the region.
To ensure a reliable setup, I accessed the fastest and most expensive internet provider in Harare, Liquid, to secure the private keys and establish a Lightning channel to join the network.
Opening a Channel
Consistency was paramount in my study, and hence I developed a standardized test protocol for each wallet. On December 26 and 27, I installed the wallets and initiated a transfer of 100,000 sats (~$42 at current prices) to open a Lightning channel. These channels require two transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain for setup, ensuring a constant connection with the blockchain.
There are various methods of opening a channel, including sending on-chain Bitcoin, transferring Lightning directly from another wallet, or utilizing a swap from Liquid. I explored these methods to observe their impact on setup speed and fees.
Comparative Analysis of Different Methods
My study encompassed a comparative analysis of the different methods to open a channel, such as Bitcoin on-chain, Lightning, and Liquid. Notably, Blixt stood out for its specific approach, as the channel opening process required an additional on-chain transaction, leading to delays and complications in suboptimal conditions.
Additionally, I explored the use of Liquid in opening channels for Green and Zeus. While Liquid offers a more economical option under certain circumstances, it comes with inherent trust and reliance on intermediaries, distinguishing it from Bitcoin and Lightning.
Cost Analysis
An integral aspect of my study involved a thorough evaluation of network fees, transaction costs, and service fees associated with the different methods of opening a channel. The costs varied across the different wallets and methods, providing valuable insights into the financial implications of utilizing each wallet.
Exploring the Lightning Network Wallet Test Results
At a time when the average fee rate was 110 sat/vByte ($0.000054), channel opening was the cheapest when using Lightning directly from another LN wallet. The route using Liquid and Boltz was slightly more expensive than using Lightning.
The available balance after opening the channel varied significantly. Zeus had the lowest balance of 52,500 sats, while Green had the highest at 97,500 sats. This difference was surprising, especially since I used Liquid for both. Green was the clear winner with a cost of 3.5%, whereas Zeus was by far the most expensive wallet with 48.5% of the funds spent in opening the channel.
Mutiny offered the biggest channel capacity and the highest receivable amount with 100,000 sats, while at the same time it was the second most expensive. However, a drawback of Green was its limited incoming capacity of only 4,133 sats.
Field Conditions for Payment Testing
After the initial set-up, I set out to do the payment test on Jan. 1, 2024. Navigating through the rocky terrain and scorching heat, I struggled to find a stable internet signal for my devices. It took a substantial amount of effort to eventually settle on a shaded spot with a stable NetOne signal for my testing.
Now seated on some rocks, surrounded by trees and bushes, I encountered fluctuating network coverage and experienced slow download speeds. Despite the challenging conditions, I proceeded with the testing of various wallet apps.
Testing Wallet Performance
My speed test results showed a ping of 90 and a download speed of 4.6 Mbps and an upload speed 0.5 Mbps. When I started testing the wallets, the Phoenix wallet opened immediately. The Green wallet took 13 seconds to open, and the Mutiny wallet needed 18 seconds. However, Zeus didn’t open at all, even after a 150-second wait. Similarly, Blixt opened but failed to sync the channels and wallet, rendering it unusable. As expected, the custodial Wallet of Satoshi opened immediately.
Detailed Payment Testing
My first test was to send 50,000 sats from the different wallets to my Phoenix wallet on my iPhone. Unfortunately, I could not send from Blixt as it did not sync at all. Zeus was also unusable since it wouldn’t even start up. The Green wallet’s payment attempt was unsuccessful, displaying an error message. With the Mutiny wallet, after a slight struggle, I was able to send the payment successfully. The Phoenix wallet was the quickest, completing the transfer in just three seconds. The custodial Wallet of Satoshi surprisingly took nine seconds for the payment to go through.
Wallet Reliability and Speed
Phoenix and the Wallet of Satoshi stood out as the most dependable in terms of payment reliability. Mutiny also performed reasonably well. Evidently, Phoenix proved its reliability even in challenging conditions, successfully processing all four payments.
Lightning to Liquid Conversion Test
For the Lightning to Liquid swap, I attempted the exchange using Boltz.exchange and the Green wallet as the recipient. Surprisingly, Mutiny failed in this swap, while Phoenix and the Wallet of Satoshi successfully completed the swap from Lightning to Liquid Bitcoin.
Comparing Costs and Fees
The costs for sending and receiving were roughly the same across different wallets. However, the costs associated with opening a channel varied significantly, with the Green wallet being the cheapest option and Zeus being the most expensive. The differences in fees for payments were marginal, just around 100 to 200 sats, which is negligible.
Final Observations and Recommendations
Phoenix emerged as the clear winner in terms of payment speed and reliability. Despite challenging network conditions, it consistently outperformed other wallets. This suggests that, in the real world, Phoenix may offer a more reliable and efficient user experience. Additionally, the Green wallet proved to be cost-effective for opening channels, further solidifying its position as a competitive option within the Lightning Network ecosystem.
Insights into Self-Custodial Lightning Wallets Performance
When it comes to Lightning wallets, performance, reliability and user-friendliness are the key factors that investors look at. In a recent evaluation of self-custodial Lightning wallets in rural Zimbabwe in 2024, wallets such as Phoenix, Mutiny, Green, Zeus, and Blixt were put to the test for their performance, reliability, and user-friendliness.
Opening channels with these wallets varied in cost and balance. Phoenix and the Wallet of Satoshi exhibited high reliability and speed, with Phoenix outperforming the custodial Wallet of Satoshi.
Assessing Wallet Features and Differences
As part of the evaluation, the wallets’ features were carefully assessed, with a focus on user-friendliness and security aspects. The process included an examination of the backup procedures and how well users were guided to ensure the highest security standards without compromising their actions.
Wallet Backup Explained
The evaluation prioritized the backup process, with a particular emphasis on 12-word seed phrases, deemed to offer acceptable security and randomness for private keys while being easier to store than 24-word seeds. In this regard, Green and Phoenix used 12-word seeds, while Blixt, Mutiny, and Zeus opted for 24-word seeds.
A notable point is the introduction of “forced backup,” a design feature where users are compelled to write down the backup when opening the wallet. Green was the only wallet offering this feature, while others merely presented a call to action. This design philosophy aimed to seamlessly encourage the adoption of high-security measures.
Nevertheless, allowing the seed phrase to be copied to the device’s clipboard, while convenient, posed potential security risks. The act of copying it through various means, including email, screenshots, or documents, could compromise the security of funds. The balance between convenience and security emerged as a critical consideration, especially in self-custodial Lightning wallets.
Considerations for Cloud Backup
The inclusion of cloud backups as an option also raised questions about user data security and accessibility. While Blixt offered cloud backup for channels in addition to the 24-word seed phrase, Mutiny did not provide cloud backup. The evaluation also highlighted the presence of additional recovery options, such as Green’s Greenlight node, despite their non-essential nature.
App Lock Preferences
In pursuit of added security, the preference for PIN, password, or pattern locks to secure a Bitcoin wallet was noted. The potential consequences of alternative security protocols, such as fingerprint or Face ID, under various circumstances were highlighted. While Blixt, Mutiny, Green, and Zeus offered password or PIN-based security, Phoenix provided biometric options, a feature open for potential review.
Stand-Alone On-Chain Wallet
A significant feature examined was the provision of a separate on-chain Bitcoin wallet within the Lightning wallet. The convenience of having to install only one app for both Bitcoin and Lightning payments was acknowledged as a noteworthy feature. Blixt, Mutiny, Green, and Zeus were noted to provide a separate on-chain Bitcoin wallet, while Phoenix did not separate this functionality.
Coin Control and UTXO Management
The need for Bitcoin mobile wallets allowing coin control and the management of different UTXOs for transactions was emphasized. This capability was viewed as increasingly important as transaction fees rose. The absence of this feature in the tested wallets was noted, limiting users’ ability to manage transaction costs effectively. However, it was observed that Green offered coin control, albeit exclusively in the desktop version, not on mobile.
Lightning Address Functionality
The evaluation highlighted the convenience of Lightning addresses, which enabled the asynchronous receipt of Lightning payments without the wallet being actively open. While Blixt offered a Lightning address through their experimental feature called “Lightning Box,” Zeus utilized hodl invoices, a solution with potential drawbacks. The absence of Lightning addresses in the other self-custody wallets was also noted.
The evaluation also hinted that leveraging custodial services for Lightning addresses might be a more viable option in some instances, citing the allowance for payments to Lightning addresses across all the wallets.
Channel Features
Among the wallets, only Phoenix offered auto channels at the time of the evaluation. This feature streamlined the setup process by dynamically adjusting the channel size based on transaction amounts. The evaluation also compared the fee settings, the ability for users to define the maximum Lightning fee, and channel management across the different wallets.
Subsequent Test in Urban Area with LTE Connection
Upon returning to an urban area and conducting additional tests, specific issues with some of the wallets were brought to light. Notably, Green’s experimental mode was found to be considerably experimental, leading to the inability to send any Lightning payments. Similar reports from other users were also referenced, prompting concerns about functionality.
Furthermore, Blixt failed to sync to the top of the blockchain, and Zeus encountered delays in readying the node for payments, leading to a suboptimal user experience.
Overall Rankings for Lightning Self-Custody
Reflecting on the evaluation from an educator’s perspective, a distinction was made in the top choices for Lightning self-custody wallets. Phoenix emerged as the standout performer, offering exceptional reliability and performance. Mutiny, while not flawless, was lauded for its user-friendliness, making it a compelling option for beginners, despite some limitations. Green, Blixt, and Zeus were deemed more suitable for advanced users, not without their operational challenges.
The importance of individual goals and feature needs in choosing an optimal wallet was emphasized. The evaluation concluded by urging investors to consider their requirements, drawing attention to the availability of an online learning program for guidance in this endeavor.
Wrapping Up
In summary, the evaluation offered valuable insights into self-custodial Lightning wallets, shedding light on performance, reliability, and user-friendliness. It highlighted key differences among the tested wallets, serving as a resource for potential investors seeking to navigate the evolving landscape of Lightning wallets.