Nitpick: It's very important in the ecosystem to build decentralized systems without trust in third parties. At the present time, there is not yet malleability fix integration and therefore this is not a Lightning Network implementation as defined in the paper (much like how the Coinbase wallet is not a LN implementation).

That being said, it's always great to build software which will help the bitcoin ecosystem, more people building responsible systems decreasing the need for trust will help all in the bitcoin ecosystem.

In the interest of full disclosure and the desire to encourage removing trusted custodians (there are several people building decentralized LN implementations, including ourselves as the LN authors , Rusty @ Blockstream's, Eclair, and more), I'm including the mail I sent to the article author below:

Hi Romain,

I'm the first author for the Lightning Network paper (
http://lightning.network/ ). 

I'd like to make a correction to your piece on Thunder Network.

Blockchain.info's Thunder software at the current time is not a Lightning
Network implementation. It relies upon trust upon a server due to the
malleability problem, as mentioned in the article:

> Thunder can’t work with anyone with a bitcoin wallet just yet as the
> bitcoin core development team needs to release segregated witness and
> CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY features.

In the future, Blockchain's Thunder software may become a LN 
implementation, but it is not a Lightning Network implementation at the
present time due to the need for trust upon a 3rd party to not lock up funds
is an inherent aspect to the protocol itself (it's the material
difference between giving funds to another party). The core aspect of LN 
as defined in the paper (unlike Thunder in its current state) is that it 
is decentralized, without custodial trust in 3rd parties with one's
funds.

We currently have an implementation on 
https://github.com/LightningNetwork/lnd

I'd be happy to answer any further questions you may have.

-- 
Joseph Poon