Introduction

In a quest to identify the most suitable self-custodial Lightning wallets for rural areas, particularly in Zimbabwe where such technology is scarcely tested due to its novelty and the absence of African-developed options, I conducted a comprehensive field test. This endeavor is part of my broader mission as an educator to recommend reliable digital financial tools to everyday users for small transactions, emphasizing the importance of user-friendly and efficient Bitcoin solutions.

Background

Anita Posch, a renowned Bitcoin educator and the author of “(L)earn Bitcoin”, has been a pioneer in exploring and teaching about Bitcoin’s potential for fairness and inclusivity. My journey into testing Lightning wallets began with opening my first Lightning channel in 2019, highlighting a dedication to rigorously evaluating these tools before recommending them to non-technical users.

Objective and Methodology

The goal was to assess the performance of self-custodial Lightning wallets – Blixt, Mutiny, Green, Zeus, Phoenix, and the custodial Wallet of Satoshi – under real-world conditions. The criteria were reliability, ease of use, cost-effectiveness, and speed in facilitating Bitcoin transactions. This evaluation was set against the backdrop of my previous experiences and aimed at providing insights into their applicability in areas with limited internet access.

Initial Setup

Prior to field testing, initial preparations involved setting up wallets and opening Lightning channels in Harare, anticipating connectivity issues in more remote locations. This phase was crucial to understanding the setup complexities and network fees associated with each wallet, leveraging Zimbabwe’s challenging internet landscape as a benchmark for their performance.

Field Testing

The core of the study took place in rural areas outside Harare, where I assessed each wallet’s ability to handle transactions under suboptimal network conditions. This hands-on testing revealed significant differences in wallet functionalities, particularly in terms of opening times, transaction success rates, and the practicalities of sending and receiving small amounts of bitcoin.

Findings

• Reliability and Speed: Phoenix and the Wallet of Satoshi proved most reliable, with Phoenix outperforming in speed, even under challenging internet conditions.
• Cost-effectiveness: Opening channels varied in cost, with Green wallet emerging as the most economical option despite its limited success in transactions.
• User Experience: The ease of setting up and securing wallets varied, highlighting the trade-off between convenience and security. Notably, the forced backup feature in Green wallet was a standout for promoting user security.

Recommendations

Based on my tests, Phoenix and Mutiny wallets were the top picks for their balance of user-friendliness, reliability, and efficiency. However, users’ needs and preferences should guide the final choice, considering factors such as fee structures, security features, and backup options.

Conclusion

This exploration into self-custodial Lightning wallets in a rural Zimbabwean context in 2024 underlines the critical role of tailored, reliable, and accessible financial technologies. While challenges persist, particularly around internet connectivity and user education, the potential for Bitcoin to empower individuals in rural areas remains vast. My ongoing commitment to evaluating and sharing these tools aims to bridge the gap between cutting-edge technology and daily financial empowerment.