Added ⚡️ content to Designing Bitcoin Products > Principles

[sbddesign]

⚡️ See Deploy Preview

I have reviewed the Principles page, and I think the principles stand strong. I do not believe that any principles conflict with Lightning, and I do not think any new principles need to be added. I modified some language to include LN and added numerous grammar, style, and typographical fixes.

Criteria

To assess these principles, I took each one and asked myself the following:

• Can I think of an example of a good non-custodial Lightning wallet which violates this principle?
  • If no, then the principle stands.
  • If yes, is there any reason why this wallet could not be updated to not violate this principle?
    • If no, then the principle stands.

Included

The types of wallets that I included in this thought experiment are:

1. Wallets apps that connect to a remote LN node managed by the user (e.g. Zeus)
2. Wallet apps that run their own LN node locally (e.g. Breez, BlueWallet + LDK)
3. Wallets with novel implementations (e.g. Muun)

Not Included

The types of wallets that I did not include in this thought experiment

• Wallets that connect to a remote LN hub (e.g. BlueWallet + LNDHub)
  • As the LN continues to grow, I'm skeptical if this implementation will be common. I think it's useful at the moment for some people in some situations, but I think the above listed types are going to be far more common (particularly 2).

While there are definitely many technical edge cases to consider (and I'm happy to discuss these), I feel like these are edge cases that belong in the realm of engineering and not in principles.

Edits

Self-Custody

Grammar and style fixes

Security

• Grammar and style fixes
• Removed line about external dependencies
  • IMHO this is a vague statement, not fully accurate, and is more the purview of engineers than designers

Inclusion

Edited the line about Kenyan farmer. Open to discussion here. It depends on what we mean here. I don't think there is equal access to internet and smartphones everywhere in the world, so I find it to be a problematic claim. Perhaps we just mean in a general sense, like "hypothetically, assuming you have internet and assuming you have a smartphone, nothing prevents you from using Bitcoin?"

Interoperability

Clarified language around wallet import and export for LN. One can't simply export and import a LN wallet in the same manner as an on-chain wallet, but we should absolutely encourage people to make a clear path for the user to move their LN funds to another wallet even if the process looks different than an on-chain backup.

Transparency

Grammar and style fixes.

Privacy

Highlighted LN as a key privacy tool

Decentralization

No edits. This is already fully compatible with LN in my view. A LN node needs access to a Bitcoin node or block filters, so encouraging full nodes or light clients is already LN compatible.

[GBKS]

Looks good, just had some minor recommendations.

[GBKS]

Did you validate across the whole site whether this messes up layouts anywhere? If this is meant only for main page content, it should go into _article.scss.

[sbddesign]

I did, I scanned every page on the site. The only other place I found a nested list used was on this page and I thought the change looked good there. How do you feel about it?

[pavlenex]

LGTM

[pavlenex]

Closes #481