0 sats \ 0 replies \ @fanis 14 Mar \ parent \ on: Per Capita Cheese Consumption. Guess who takes the first place charts
Totally, one of my favorite! This one is a 36 months, but I usually go for 48 when it's available.
This post made me hungry so I sliced myself a few of this bad boys. This is around 110 grams of cheese (about 1.5x the daily average consumption according to the above study).
Left to right: Mothais sur feuille (foreground), Compté (background), Laguiole (fg), Roquefort (bg), Reblochon.
(mandarine for scale, but might eat is as well)
PS: if you have questions about French cheeses feel free to ask them below, I'll try to answer throughout the day 🧀
Interesting to see more and more of this kind of services pop up, with Lightning present from Day 1. Of course it makes a lot of sense, and it would almost seem absurd today to launch something like that without Lighting support, but that wasn't the case just 1-2 years ago.
A side note. Taken from their website:
Customers pay you from their wallet directly to yours
I know it's just wording, but if the service takes a 1% cut, then it's clearly not directly from the customer's wallet to yours. It's instant, automatic withdrawal to your wallet at best.
There's a clear tension between services that offer instant automatic withdrawals to your own wallet and can charge their fee before performing the withdrawal ; and services like Zaprite that don't want to be in charge of your funds at any point, and thus can't take a fee on each transactions and hence have to rely on charging a monthly subscription. My guess is they don't address the same market, and the Zaprite model starts to make sense when you begin to see steady cahsflow in sats going through.
Create an account and complete the registration process by verifying your identity
Why call it Stealth Money then?
You can order a wallet device which you will receive in a few days and set up or add an old Bitcoin wallet if you have one.
I don't get who is the target. Something called Stealth Money certainly attracts people who are already deep in the space, rather than newcomers who need the simplicity of being able to buy everything from the same place.
I was also thinking about that pain point, it would likely require an upgraded routing method in order to use one or multiple federations along the route.
What's interesting is the twi proposed alternative routing mechanisms that I know of would solve this pain point:
- trampoline routing by having C be a trampoline node,
- ant routing, since every node responds based on their knowledge of their surroundings.
Interesting idea. I'll add we could preserve the atomicity of the route by adding another spending condition to the ecash that C sends to E, that is revealing the preimage.
What's nice is the rest of the route doesn't need to care about the fact that the payment goes through an ecash custodial mint. The risk is taken by E when it accepts to forward the payment in exchange of ecash tokens (a bit like a hosted channel can be used to route payments.
However, a major pain point is that if there is no channel between C and D (or C and E), the sender is unlikely to pick a route that goes A -> B -> C -> (ECASH FEDERATION) -> E -> D. So in the current state of Lightning this would only work if the ecash part happens at the end of the route (A -> B -> C -> (ECASH FEDERATION) -> D, so that the recipient (D) can add a routing hint in the invoice telling the sender (A) that there is indeed a path from C to D. But then, that's not really routing, but just using a Lightning Gateway (C) inside a chaumian mint.
They can use the funds, because even though the ecash is locked to the receiver's pubkey, the bitcoins are not. The ecash is a liability, a credit, backed by an asset, btc. Hermes can run off with the asset (btc) and refuse to honor the liability (ecash).
I'm assuming Hermes isn't part of the Federation, just a service provider operating in the mint.
The mint will only create the ecash after the sats are in its control. So either Hermes steals the funds upfront (no ecash minted, nobody knows they stole unless the sender talks to the recipient), or they'd need to collude with the Federation.
I think it's "not custodial" in the sense that the Hermes server cannot use the funds, since the ecash is locked to the receiver's pubkey. But since the Hermes server can always stealthily steal from you by responding to requests with their own invoices, I'm not sure I see much of an advantage here. You need to trust the Hermes server anyway.