BitBit Wallet - No on-chain transactions, only Spark & Lightning

[internetional]

I recently came across a new Bitcoin wallet called BitBit, and it really caught my attention for one unusual reason. It’s hard to find a Bitcoin wallet that you literally cannot top up on-chain. BitBit offers only two deposit methods: Spark and Lightning. Technically, you can also fund it via an internal wallet ID, but that still boils down to Spark in the end.

I respect bold decisions like this. Even Phoenix, which is an LN-maxi wallet, still allows on-chain deposits - though it instantly pushes them into a payment channel. BitBit, on the other hand, makes it clear: there’s not enough blockspace for everyone. Let’s process our small transactions via other methods. IMO, this is the right approach for onboarding the masses. Better to start this way than to train people on on-chain payments first, and only later - when fees are sky-high - show them the alternatives. Start with the alternatives from day one.

But I see a problem. Most people aren’t ready for LN yet. And many Bitcoiners haven’t even heard of Spark. So mass adoption might be a long shot for this wallet.

Still, I think BitBit deserves some attention. For example, it has a neat little feature: when you install it (as a Chrome extension), a lightning icon appears under posts on x.com, just like in NOSTR. Click it, and you can instantly send a small tip to the author of a post you liked. I think that’s pretty cool.


My only gripe is that my wallet there is tied to my X account. If, for some reason, my X account gets banned, I suspect I’d have trouble accessing my funds.

[BitMaxz]

I can't seem to find much information about this wallet; even Google pointed me to a trading bot. I click your link, and it provides me the right site, but it shows "coming" and no information yet about the wallet. It seems it is still underdeveloped?

I am looking for how Spark transactions work. It looks like they work the same as internal transactions on most of the exchanges where you can send any coins via ID.

The cons for this type of wallet are that you can't hold a big amount of BTC.
The good thing is since it works internally, the transactions are almost instant and good only for tiny transactions if fees are very cheap, but it's still not a good solution when the BTC network becomes congested again and fees are expensive because you still need on-chain from your on-chain wallet to LN and then to Bitbit wallet same as to what exchange or wallet support Spark transaction.

[internetional]

I try not to keep satoshis in on-chain wallets. I prefer to immediately move all BTC received on-chain into payment channels. It’s safer, since the Lightning Network doesn’t have AML-related harassment. So for me, topping up this wallet isn’t a problem.

It’s strange that you can’t see the available app via the link. I downloaded it from the Webstore, and it’s accessible for me.

Maybe this is due to Google’s recent policy change regarding wallets. Now in 15 jurisdictions, even non-custodial wallets are only added to the app store if their developers have a banking license. I’ve only seen official info about this for the Play Market: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/16329703?hl=en&sjid=14325270452580263754-EU - but it’s logical to assume the Webstore policy is now similar.

Could your account possibly belong to one of those jurisdictions?

[Pmalek]

But I see a problem. Most people aren’t ready for LN yet.

Most people don't need LN. It only becomes useful in certain situations. Bitcoin hasn't suffered from high transaction fees in a long time. In fact, there is enough block space available that miners have started including transactions as low as 0.10 sat/vByte in their blocks. LN becomes useful when you are going to make multiple (especially small) transactions with a certain party. It's also useful when you need instant confirmations, like when buying food or paying for your groceries. 

Still, I think BitBit deserves some attention. For example, it has a neat little feature: when you install it (as a Chrome extension), a lightning icon appears under posts on x.com, just like in NOSTR. Click it, and you can instantly send a small tip to the author of a post you liked. I think that’s pretty cool.

My only gripe is that my wallet there is tied to my X account. If, for some reason, my X account gets banned, I suspect I’d have trouble accessing my funds.

If Bitbit is non-custodial that shouldn't be a worry.

I try not to keep satoshis in on-chain wallets. I prefer to immediately move all BTC received on-chain into payment channels. It’s safer, since the Lightning Network doesn’t have AML-related harassment. So for me, topping up this wallet isn’t a problem.

It might be more convenient for you but it's certainly not safer and more secure. Bitcoin L2s aren't safer than the native L1. You will have AML-related issues only if you transfer your coins to services and custodians that have the power to cause you such problems. Don't do that and you will be fine.

It’s strange that you can’t see the available app via the link. I downloaded it from the Webstore, and it’s accessible for me.

I think he means the website, not the webstore link you shared. This one: https://bitbit.bot/

Maybe this is due to Google’s recent policy change regarding wallets. Now in 15 jurisdictions, even non-custodial wallets are only added to the app store if their developers have a banking license. I’ve only seen official info about this for the Play Market: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/16329703?hl=en&sjid=14325270452580263754-EU - but it’s logical to assume the Webstore policy is now similar.

Could your account possibly belong to one of those jurisdictions?

Google has already confirmed that non-custodial software will not be affected by those policy changes. Besides, those are not in affect yet. I think they plan to roll them out in October.

[dkbit98]

Stupidity continue with another Lightning wallets and I don't understand how people are not worried about this.
There are people who are only pushing for LN and in the same time we have empty mempool on bitcoin main chain.
I didn't check source code for BitBit wallet but I would not be surprised if it is closed source.

My only gripe is that my wallet there is tied to my X account. If, for some reason, my X account gets banned, I suspect I’d have trouble accessing my funds.

I would never connect my bitcoin wallet with twitter or any other social media account.

[internetional]

My only gripe is that my wallet there is tied to my X account. If, for some reason, my X account gets banned, I suspect I’d have trouble accessing my funds.

If Bitbit is non-custodial that shouldn't be a worry.

I try not to keep satoshis in on-chain wallets. I prefer to immediately move all BTC received on-chain into payment channels. It’s safer, since the Lightning Network doesn’t have AML-related harassment. So for me, topping up this wallet isn’t a problem.

It might be more convenient for you but it's certainly not safer and more secure. Bitcoin L2s aren't safer than the native L1. You will have AML-related issues only if you transfer your coins to services and custodians that have the power to cause you such problems. Don't do that and you will be fine.

Oh, I’ve already had enough of wallets that call themselves non-custodial, but then, when something happens, you can’t withdraw your bitcoins because it turns out that behind the “non-custodial” label is a situation where nobody actually holds the bitcoins - neither you yourself, nor the wallet developers. In this thread I gave a few examples: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5479308.0

On the other hand, the Spark documentation explains how to withdraw bitcoins if you have the seed phrase: https://docs.spark.money/wallet/0-to-1#step-5%3A-withdraw-funds-into-a-l1-wallet In principle, it shouldn’t be too difficult.

As for AML issues that may arise on L1 - such problems can be created by any recipient. Anyone who receives coins and, for whatever reason, decides they’re “tainted” might refuse to fulfill what they were paid for. That’s why I prefer not to tempt anyone and only send bitcoins on-chain to people who personally know me and understand that I don’t deal with anything criminal. For everything else there are methods where the history is not traceable, which means nobody will have a reason to fear that the received bitcoins are “tainted”.