Yes you can unilaterally exit if denial of service is made against you on lightspark’s Spark entity. Further more, theoretically anyone can spin up and be a Spark Entity with their own Spark Operator quorum and specifically orientate themselves as a non-kyc operation. There’s however always the genuine risk of collision leaving you without coin.
But that’s much less likely if there are more than 1 Spark Entities plus more than 1 Spark service providers.
Currently there is 1 SE lightspark , 2 Spark Operators in that Entity (lighspark and flasnet (apparently related to lightspark) and 1 ssp (lightspark) but breeze is meant to become one I believe.
It’s the positioning of lightspark (enterprise interoperability with the banking system with UMA) that some people are having the issue with, not so much the protocol itself (from what I gather)
LSP question is valid and I’d like to know more about it from ZEUS (npub1xnf…lpr5) however again I’d imaging it’s more the positioning here, they are going in the other direction, so the likelyhood of KYC denial of service would be dramatically reduce.
paxchristi
npub13p…cmj3f
2026-03-12 13:00:19 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…jx9l
Author Public Key
npub13paz6seqlckvtvwfxwhjz60ycupkh5zj6ykz7d67zqkxyjnl6j8sqcmj3fSeen on
wss://relay.damus.ioPublished at
2026-03-12 13:00:19 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "44a9ab0c295d79ac688a8b283c3c7936df5fc685534ca11e1e5934e35490f10e",
"pubkey": "887a2d4320fe2cc5b1c933af2169e4c7036bd052d12c2f375e102c624a7fd48f",
"created_at": 1773320419,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2b7cdd09b3a4eef1a03a47bbb68ba99219efb66458d2c9547c05097fd2c5ec3c",
"wss://nostr.oxtr.dev/",
"root",
"2d9873b25bf2dda6141684d44d5eb76af59f167788a58e363ab1671fefee87f2"
],
[
"e",
"e69bb02a1c0f6f536eed02370d241a749e0d8b7d69bae4c7d5a0641d7ad1eedc",
"wss://nostr.oxtr.dev",
"reply",
"0c24e3235228f3ee5369d4a8a46ea92f28f1a83936de61ac6b4003d40344d422"
],
[
"p",
"50d94fc2d8580c682b071a542f8b1e31a200b0508bab95a33bef0855df281d63"
],
[
"p",
"edb470271297ac5a61f277f3cd14de54c67eb5ccd20ef0d9df29be18685bb004"
],
[
"p",
"2d9873b25bf2dda6141684d44d5eb76af59f167788a58e363ab1671fefee87f2"
],
[
"p",
"0c24e3235228f3ee5369d4a8a46ea92f28f1a83936de61ac6b4003d40344d422"
],
[
"p",
"34d2f5274f1958fcd2cb2463dabeaddf8a21f84ace4241da888023bf05cc8095"
]
],
"content": "Yes you can unilaterally exit if denial of service is made against you on lightspark’s Spark entity. Further more, theoretically anyone can spin up and be a Spark Entity with their own Spark Operator quorum and specifically orientate themselves as a non-kyc operation. There’s however always the genuine risk of collision leaving you without coin. \n\nBut that’s much less likely if there are more than 1 Spark Entities plus more than 1 Spark service providers. \n\nCurrently there is 1 SE lightspark , 2 Spark Operators in that Entity (lighspark and flasnet (apparently related to lightspark) and 1 ssp (lightspark) but breeze is meant to become one I believe. \n\nIt’s the positioning of lightspark (enterprise interoperability with the banking system with UMA) that some people are having the issue with, not so much the protocol itself (from what I gather) \n\nLSP question is valid and I’d like to know more about it from nostr:npub1xnf02f60r9v0e5kty33a404dm79zr7z2eepyrk5gsq3m7pwvsz2sazlpr5 however again I’d imaging it’s more the positioning here, they are going in the other direction, so the likelyhood of KYC denial of service would be dramatically reduce.",
"sig": "d5070fa08dc6444bd7b6588e9e6786e9774d9dc5ac7ebdcef42503e7466d83188241e1eafc0f702ef35404fdd9c2ea854240d5f5b8f29a13c783c6b1272e6b41"
}