Which Is the Best Self-Custody Lightning Wallet?

I’m
conducting
my
second

test
of
self-custodial
Lightning
wallets
in
Zimbabwe,
to
see
which
might
be
best
for
any
rural
area.
Given
that
none
of
the
available
self-custodial
wallets
are
developed
by
Africans,
they
are
rarely
used
or
tested
here.
On
top
of
that,
Lightning
is
still
new
and
complex,
building
mobile
apps
that
are
running
a
node
of
the
network
on
your
phone
is
challenging.

I
am
here
to
find
out
what
works
and
what
does
not.
As
an
educator,
I
recommend
tools
for
everyday
users,
who
want
to
send
small
payments.
These
tools
have
to
be
reliable,
otherwise
people
might
conclude
that
Bitcoin
isn’t
for
them.

Anita
Posch
is
a
world-renowned
Bitcoin
educator,
author
of
the
book


“(L)earn
Bitcoin”

and
founder
of
the
online
academy


Crack
the
Orange

as
well
as
non-profit
initiative


Bitcoin
for
Fairness.

I
opened
my
first
Lightning
channel
on
an
app
called
BLW
in
January
2019.
I’m
used
to
testing
new
tools,
that’s
why
I
have
no
problem
if
challenges
and
bugs
arise.
But
regular
users
may
not
be
as
forgiving,
that’s
why
I
aim
to
only
recommend
tools
I’ve
personally
tested.

In
2023,
the
only
two
self-custody
Lightning
wallets
available
were
Breez
and
Phoenix.

This
year
I
had
more
choices
and
tested:
Blixt,
Mutiny,
Green,
Zeus
and
Phoenix.
I
also
included
the
Wallet
of
Satoshi,
a
custodial
wallet,
just
to
see
how
it
performs
in
comparison.
I
was
familiar
with
Phoenix
and
used
Zeus
connected
to
my
Voltage
node
earlier.
Mutiny,
Blixt
and
the
Lightning
integration
in
Blockstream’s
Green
wallet
just
popped
up
in
the
last
few
months,
so
using
them
was
new
for
me
too.

All
of
the
wallets
have
been
undergoing
huge
changes
and
will
continue
to
evolve.
I
had
to
download
Mutiny
manually
and
install
a
special
.apk
file
used
on
Android
phones.
For
the
Green
wallet,
I
asked
BlockStream
to
unlock
its
experimental

Greenlight
feature
in
order
to
test
it.

My
goal
was
to
find
out
which
of
the
wallets
are
the
best
in
sending
and
receiving
bitcoin
in
a
reliable,
fast,
easy
to
use
manner
and
to
compare
the
costs
involved.

See
also:


Coinbase
CEO
Confirms
Exchange
Will
Support
Lightning

Before
heading
to
the
rural
areas
(I
intended
to
test
the
wallets
under
suboptimal
conditions),
I
set
up
the
wallets
and
opened
a
Lightning
payments
channel
in
Harare
as
I
anticipated
low
internet
signal
challenges.
Based
on
my
year-long
experience
in
Zimbabwe,
I’ve
learned
that
even
with
decent
internet
speed,
the
upload
and
download
of
files
as
small
as
2
MB
can
be
problematic.

I
used
the
internet
at
a
friend’s
house
to
use
the
fastest
internet
provider
in
Harare
called
Liquid,
which
is
also
the
most
expensive
with
a
monthly
cost
of
$300
for
unlimited
usage.
My
speed
test
results
for
download
were
92.7
Mbps
and
upload
14.6
Mbps.
Even
with
that
fast
internet
it
took
me
some
time
to
install
the
apps,
secure
the
private
keys
and
open
a
Lightning
channel
to
be
a
part
of
the
network.

To
ensure
consistency,
I
followed
a
test
protocol
for
each
wallet.
On
Dec.
26
and
27,
I
installed
the
wallets
and
sent
100,000
sats
(~$42
at
current
prices)
to
open
a
Lightning
channel.
A
channel
on
the
Lightning
Network
needs
two
transactions
on
the
Bitcoin
blockchain
to
be
set
up.
That
way
the
channel
is
constantly
connected
to
the
blockchain,
which
is
why
the
bitcoin
on
the
Bitcoin
blockchain
and
bitcoin
on
the
Lightning
network
are
the
same.
There
is
no
difference
in
the
value,
it’s
the
same
unit,
not
another
token
or
asset.

There
are
several
ways
to
open
a
channel:
sending
on-chain
bitcoin,
transferring
Lightning
directly
from
another
wallet
or
through
a
swap
from
Liquid
or
some
wallets
are
offering
buying
inbound
liquidity.
I
tried
them
all
to
send
the
first
bitcoin
to
the
wallets,
affecting
set-up
speed
and
fees
I
had
to
pay.

See
also:


Bitcoin
Could
See
Growth
in
Layer-2
Ecosystem,
Drawing
on
Ethereum’s
Experience

I
used
a
Lightning
payment
to
open
a
channel
on
all
wallets,
except
for
Blixt,
as
I
only
found
the
on-chain
option
there
(except
for
liquidity
providers).
Seemingly,
Blixt
is
opening
the
channel
with
a
second
on-chain
transaction
while
the
other
wallets
conceal
that
second
transaction
somehow,
because
the
channel
opened
immediately
after
the
first
transaction
confirmation.
Not
with
Blixt:
I
sent
the
first
transaction
and
the
confirmation
took
some
hours,
it
was
evening
already,
so
I
had
to
leave
the
friend’s
house.
As
soon
as
it
was
confirmed,
Blixt
carried
out
the
second
on-chain
transaction,
which
took
again
several
hours
because
the
mempool
was
full.
When
the
second
transaction
was
confirmed
I
was
back
in
the
house
where
I’m
living,
with
internet
speed
only
around
3
Mbps
download,
0.26
upload
and
a
Ping
over
300ms.
Blixt

wasn’t
able
to
open
the
channel
in
these
circumstances.
I
needed
to
go
back
to
my
friend’s
house
to
finish
the
channel
opening.
It’s
hard
to
say
how
other
wallets
would
have
performed
under
these
conditions.

For
the
channel
openings
on
Green
and
Zeus,
I
used
Liquid,
swapped
via

Boltz.exchange
to
Lightning,
due
to
high
transaction
fees
at
the
time.
Opening
a
channel
from
Liquid
is
far
more
economical
in
that
situation.
Liquid
is
a
sidechain
of
Bitcoin,
its
unit
is
called
L-BTC.

Learn
the
differences
between
Bitcoin,
Lightning,
Liquid,
and
E-Cash
in
this
non-technical
explainer.

One
BTC
is
pegged
to
one
L-BTC.
This
means
if
you
peg-in
0.1
BTC
to
Liquid,
the
resulting
0.1
L-BTC
are
of
the
same
value
as
BTC.
Compared
to
self-custodial
Lightning
there
is
more
trust
involved
in
using
Liquid,
because
you
have
to
go
through
intermediaries
for
the
peg-in
and
peg-out
and
trust
a
federation
of
15
companies,
who
are
the
signers
for
Liquid
transactions,
whereas
on
Bitcoin
and
Lightning
you
don‘t
have
to
trust
any
intermediaries.
The
upside
of
the
Liquid
blockchain
is
that
the
transaction
speed,
privacy
are
higher
and
currently
the
fees
are
lower
than
on
the
Bitcoin
blockchain.

I
compared
all
network
fees,
transaction,
and
service
fees
that
applied
with
the
different
methods
of
opening
a
channel.

The
cost
of
the
incoming
transaction
to
open
the
channel
was
the
highest
with
Blixt
as
I
used
bitcoin
on-chain
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
a
little
bit
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.

After
the
initial
set-up,
I
set
out
to
do
the
payment
test
on
Jan.
1,
2024.
I
strolled
through
the
scorching
heat,
making
my
way
up
to
the
kopje,
navigating
through
rocks,
grass,
bushes
and
trees
30
km
out
of
the
capitaI
Harare.
My
friends
were
captivated
by
the
beautiful
flowers
that
bloom
as
soon
as
the
rainy
season
begins.
My
focus,
however,
was
on
finding
a
decent
internet
signal
for
my
two
phones.
Having
prepared
the
test
back
in
Harare,
I
was
eager
to
carry
it
out
in
this
setting.

After
30
minutes
of
searching,
I
realized
that
the
network
coverage
was
inconsistent,
regardless
of
whether
I
used
NetOne
or
Econet.
I
was
able
to
send
WhatsApp
messages,
but
as
soon
as
I
wanted
to
download
an
image
with
0.5
MB,
I
had
to
wait
or
turn
airplane
mode
on
and
off
to
be
back
in
the
game.
Finally,
I
settled
on
a
shaded
spot
with
a
stable
NetOne
signal
to
set
up
a
hotspot
for
my
other
devices.
I
prepared
my
devices
–
my
Google
Pixel
4,
iPhone
13
Pro
and
my
iPad
Air
(3rd
generation).
The
iPad
was
included
because
I
already
had
Phoenix
wallets
on
my
other
two
devices,
and
for
this
test,
I
wanted
to
start
with
a
fresh
installation.

Now
seated
on
some
rocks,
surrounded
by
trees
and
bushes,
as
I
fend
off
large
ants
attempting
to
crawl
up
under
my
trousers
I
found
4.21
Mbps
download
and
0.36
Mbps
upload.
Glad
that
I
set
up
the
apps
already
a
few
days
earlier.

See
also:


Bitcoin
and
Stablecoins
Will
Bring
Crypto
Mass
Adoption
to
Africa

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,
so
I
couldn’t
use
it.
As
expected,
the
custodial
Wallet
of
Satoshi
opened
immediately.

My
first
test
was
to
send
50,000
sats
from
the
different
wallets
to
my
Phoenix
wallet
on
my
iPhone.
So,
the
Phoenix
wallet
on
the
iPhone
was
on
the
receiving
end.
Unfortunately,
I
could
not
send
from
Blixt
because,
as
I
said
before,
it
did
not
sync
at
all.
Zeus
was
also
unusable
since
it
wouldn’t
even
start
up.
When
I
attempted
a
payment
with
Zeus,
it
failed
after
a
five
minute
wait.
The
Green
wallet’s
payment
attempt
was
unsuccessful
too,
displaying
an
error
message
after
I
waited
for
two
and
a
half
minutes.
With
the
Mutiny
wallet,
I
almost
wanted
to
stop
but
after
50
seconds,
I
was
able
to
send
the
payment
successfully.
The
Phoenix
wallet
was
the
quickest,
completing
the
transfer
in
just
three
seconds.
And
interestingly,
the
custodial
Wallet
of
Satoshi
was
slower
than
Phoenix,
taking
nine
seconds
for
the
payment
to
go
through.
I
didn’t
anticipate
this
result,
but
I
found
it
amusing.

The
next
test
focused
on
receiving
30,000
sats
from
the
Phoenix
wallet
on
my
iPhone,
which
had
previously
served
as
the
receiving
wallet.
The
results
were
somewhat
similar
to
the
previous
test.
The
time
until
the
payment
was
sent
from
Phoenix
was
three
seconds
and
it
showed
up
in
Mutiny,
Phoenix
and
the
Wallet
of
Satoshi
immediately.
Blixt
did
not
work.
With
Green,
the
payment
failed
after
I
waited
for
35
seconds.
Similarly,
Zeus
also
failed
to
receive
the
payment
after
I
waited
for
one
and
half
minutes.

For
this
test,
I
sent
20,000
sats
to
a
Lightning
address,
using
the
Wallet
of
Satoshi
as
the
recipient
since
I
had
access
to
its
Lightning
address.
The
results
were
somewhat
consistent
with
previous
tests
but
with
a
notable
exception.
Surprisingly,
the
Green
wallet
managed
to
send
to
a
Lightning
address
this
time,
completing
the
payment
in
40
seconds.
This
was
unexpected
given
its
previous
failures
in
other
tests.
Blixt
and
Zeus
didn’t
work.
Mutiny,
Phoenix
and
Wallet
of
Satoshi,
as
anticipated,
successfully
completed
the
payments
to
a
Lightning
address.

I
wanted
to
test
whether
I
could
exchange
20,000
sats
for
Liquid
in
these
conditions,
just
to
be
confident
in
recommending
it
to
my
followers.
For
the
Lightning
to
Liquid
swap
I
was
using
the

Boltz.exchange
website,
with
the
Green
wallet
set
as
the
recipient.
I
didn’t
attempt
the
swap
with
Blixt,
Green
and
Zeus
since
their
earlier
payment
attempts
had
failed.
Surprisingly
Mutiny
failed
in
this
swap;
the
payment
did
not
go
through
even
after
I
waited
for
two
minutes.
Both
Phoenix
and
the
Wallet
of
Satoshi
successfully
completed
the
swap
from
Lightning
to
Liquid
Bitcoin.
Also
here
the
custodial
Wallet
of
Satoshi
was
slower
compared
to
the
self-custodial
Phoenix
wallet.

The
differences
in
fees
for
the
payments
were
marginal,
just
around
100
to
200
sats,
which
is
negligible.
The
costs
for
sending
and
receiving
were
roughly
the
same
across
different
wallets.

However,
the
costs
associated
with
opening
a
channel
varied
significantly.
Notably,
the
Green
wallet
was
the
cheapest
option,
requiring
only
3%
of
the
transferred
amount
as
fees.
On
the
other
hand,
Zeus
was
the
most
expensive
in
these
terms.

In
terms
of
payment
reliability,
Phoenix
and
the
Wallet
of
Satoshi
stood
out
as
the
most
dependable.
This
isn’t
surprising
for
the
Wallet
of
Satoshi,
given
its
custodial
nature.
Following
closely
was
Mutiny,
which
successfully
completed
three
out
of
four
payment
attempts.
Green,
however,
managed
only
one
successful
payment
out
of
four.

Phoenix
showed
remarkable
reliability,
successfully
processing
all
four
payments.
I
even
managed
to
send
11
sats
from
my
Phoenix
wallet
to
my
Alby
Lightning
address
under
very
challenging
conditions
with
a
download
rate
of
only
0.15
Mbps,
upload
speed
of
0.05
Mbps,
and
a
ping
of
185.

Phoenix
stands
out
as
the
clear
winner
in
terms
of
payment
speed.
It
was
even
faster
than
the
custodial
Wallet
of
Satoshi.
Green
and
Mutiny
also
show
satisfactory
performance,
provided
they
functioned
correctly.

I
evaluated
the
wallets’
features,
focusing
on
their
user-friendliness
and
security
aspects.
How
easy
is
it
to
do
a
backup?
Is
the
wallet
open
source?
How
well
are
the
wallet
users
guided
to
ensure
highest
security
standards
are
applied
without
their
actions
compromising
them?

I
focused
on
the
backup
process,
particularly
favoring
12-word
seed
phrases,
because
this
results
in
acceptable
security
and
randomness
for
the
private
keys
and
it’s
easier
to
store
12
words
than
24.
Green
and
Phoenix
use
12-word
seeds,
while
Blixt,
Mutiny
and
Zeus
opt
for
24-word
seeds.

A
key
aspect
of
product
design
is
encouraging
users
to
adopt
high-security
measures
seamlessly.
Being
forced
to
write
down
the
backup
while
opening
the
wallet
is
one
of
these
good
design
features.
I
call
it
“forced
backup”
and
only
Green
offers
it.
All
the
other
wallets
show
a
call
to
action
only.

Conversely,
permitting
the
seed
phrase
to
be
copied
to
the
device’s
clipboard
for
convenience
may
compromise
the
security
of
the
funds.
Uninformed
users
and
newbies
might
copy
it,
send
their
seed
per
email
to
themselves,
store
it
as
a
screenshot
or
in
a
Word
document.
I
have
seen
it
all.

Convenience
is
the
enemy
of
security.
While
it’s
true
that
users
should
only
store
small
amounts
in
a
Lightning
wallet,
it’s
also
a
fact
that
users
will
apply
the
same
unsafe
behavior
to
an
on-chain
wallet,
because
why
not?

Blixt
allows
copying
the
seed.
Mutiny
and
Zeus
too,
but
they
at
least
warn
their
users.
Green
and
Zeus
are
doing
it
the
right
way
and
prevent
copying
the
seed,
aligning
with
best
security
practices.

I
think
cloud
backups
on
the
user
side
are
not
desirable.
They
can
be
a
double-edged
sword,
offering
convenience
but
also
presenting
potential
security
risks
and
accessibility
issues.
Many
people
in
African
countries
don’t
have
a
Google
Drive
or
iCloud
account
to
secure
their
channels.

For
added
security,
I
prefer
to
use
a
PIN,
password,
or
pattern
lock
to
secure
a
Bitcoin
wallet.
Otherwise,
for
example
in
case
a
security
officer
at
an
airport
or
a
thief
wants
me
to
open
my
wallet,
I
can
be
forced
to
use
my
fingerprint
or
my
Face
ID.
Blixt,
Mutiny,
Green
and
Zeus
offer
password
or
PIN-based
security.
Phoenix
provided
biometric
options
such
as
face
ID
or
fingerprint
recognition
only,
but
I
hope
they
consider
making
changes
to
this
feature.

See
also:


Gridless
Uses
Bitcoin
Mining
to
Power
Rural
Africa

A
significant
feature
I
value
is
whether
the
wallets
offer
a
separate
on-chain
Bitcoin
wallet.
This
is
a
great
feature
as
users
only
need
to
install
one
app
for
Bitcoin
and
Lightning.
Blixt,
Mutiny,
Green
and
Zeus
provide
a
separate
on-chain
Bitcoin
wallet.
Phoenix
does
not.
While
it
allows
for
swapping
in
and
out,
the
functionality
is
integrated
and
not
separated
as
a
distinct
Bitcoin
wallet.

Coin
control
is
going
to
be
more
and
more
important
as
transaction
fees
are
rising.
We
need
Bitcoin
mobile
wallets
allowing
us
to
do
coin
control
and
choose
different
UTXOs
for
a
transaction.
Sadly,
none
of
the
tested
wallets
allows
that.
This
limitation
impacts
users’
ability
to
manage
transaction
costs
effectively.
While
Green
does
offer
coin
control,
it’s
only
available
in
their
desktop
version,
not
on
mobile.

A
Lightning
address,
similar
in
format
to
an
email
address,
is
a
convenient
feature
that
allows
you
to
receive
Lightning
payments
asynchronously
without
requiring
the
wallet
to
be
actively
open.
Blixt
offers
a
LN
address
in
their
experimental
feature
called
“Lightning
Box.”
Zeus
is
using
hodl
invoices,
a
solution
that
has
been
criticized
by
a
few
developers
because
of
the
complexity
and
the
fact
that
holding
invoices
could
affect
the
performance
of
the
Lightning
Network
overall.
The
other
self-custody
wallets
do
not
offer
Lightning
addresses.

Given
this,
it
might
be
a
better
option
to
use
custodial
services
like

getalby.com
or
the
Wallet
of
Satoshi
for
a
Lightning
address
and
to
send
the
sats
to
a
Bitcoin,
Lightning
or
Liquid
self-custody
wallet
from
time
to
time.
All
the
wallets
allow
payments
to
Lightning
addresses.

Only
Phoenix
offers
auto
channels
at
the
moment.
This
means
Phoenix
is
more
convenient
than
other
wallets,
because
you
only
have
to
set
up
one
channel.
The
channel
then
dynamically
adjusts
its
size
if
you
send
more
funds
to
it
than
its
liquidity
allows.
To
keep
your
channel
size
consistent,
you
should
not
swap
out
to
on-chain
bitcoin
as
it
reduces
the
size
of
the
channel.

In
terms
of
fee
settings,
all
wallets
except
Mutiny
allow
you
to
define
the
maximum
Lightning
fee
you’re
willing
to
pay.
This
gives
users
some
control
over
their
payment
costs.
Regarding
channel
management,
all
wallets
allow
you
to
force
close
the
channels.
Additionally,
Blixt,
Zeus
and
Phoenix
allow
you
to
purchase
inbound
liquidity.

After
returning
to
town
I
tested
the
payments
that
failed
a
second
time.
I
realized
that
Green’s
experimental
mode
is
really
very
experimental,
because
I
could
not
send
a
single
Lightning
payment
with
Green
and
other
people
reported
the
same
in
the
Blockstream
Telegram
group.

Blixt
was
still
not
able
to
sync
to
the
top
of
the
blockchain
and
after
five
minutes
of
waiting
I
stopped
the
process.

Zeus
was
able
to
sync
and
started
the
node,
but
then
LND
was
taking
a
long
time
to
get
Zeus
“ready
to
make
payments”
and
after
three
minutes
of
waiting
I
closed
the
app.

From
my
educator’s
perspective,
my
top
choices
are
the
Phoenix
and
Mutiny
wallet.
Everything
works
with
Phoenix,
you
don’t
need
to
worry
about
channel
management
and
payments
are
even
faster
than
with
the
custodial
Wallet
of
Satoshi.
The
fees
for
payments
in
Phoenix
might
be
off-putting,
from
that
perspective
one
might
look
into
Mutiny
as
it
is
convincing
due
to
its
user-friendliness,
making
it
ideal
for
beginners.
Mutiny’s
channel
opening
was
more
expensive
though
and
it
doesn’t
offer
auto
channels.
Part
of
their
business
model
is
the
optional
Mutiny+
subscription
for
16,000
sats
per
month.

Green
would
be
a
strong
recommendation,
particularly
for
those
who
value
additional
options
like
Liquid
and
on-chain
transactions
in
a
single
wallet
with
one
seed.
As
long
as
their
Lightning
payments
aren’t
working,
it’s
a
no-go
obviously.
Blixt
and
Zeus
are
more
suited
for
advanced
users
due
to
their
range
of
options,
but
they
did
not
work
in
my
tests.

To
choose
the
optimal
wallet,
it’s
important
to
ask
yourself
what
are
the
main
goals
and
the
features
you’ll
need.
I’ve
developed
an

online
learning
program
that
could
help
guide
you
in
that
endeavor.

In
summary,
the
evaluation
of
self-custodial
Lightning
wallets
in
rural
Zimbabwe
in
2024
revealed
important
insights.
Wallets
like
Phoenix,
Mutiny,
Green,
Zeus
and
Blixt
were
tested
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
performing
better
than
the
custodial
Wallet
of
Satoshi.

From
an
educational
standpoint,
the
wallets’
features
were
assessed,
emphasizing
user-friendliness
and
security.
Green
and
Phoenix
offered
user-friendly
12-word
seed
phrases,
while
Blixt,
Mutiny
and
Zeus
provided
24-word
seeds.
Green’s
“forced
backup”
was
a
notable
security
feature.

Cloud
backups
raised
concerns
about
user
data
security,
as
some
wallets
offered
this
option.
App
lock
preferences
and
the
availability
of
separate
on-chain
Bitcoin
wallets
were
also
considered.

Phoenix
topped
the
rankings
for
its
overall
performance
and
reliability,
followed
by
Mutiny
for
its
user-friendliness.