It's not impossible. However, unless the sender and receiver are using the same mint, a lightning payment would still be involved and zaps would be like they are on now more or less. We plan to add a builtin ecash wallet option for sending/receiving, but again, it's not a panacea.

The main advantages of ecash (I'm no expert but this what I've gathered):

1. you don't need an account at the mints you use, the notes (that you must store else lose money) represent what you're owed by the mint
   • because there are no accounts, the mint does not know where money is coming and going
2. if you're the sender, you don't need to be online to give someone else notes to your mint
3. if you're the receiver, you can receive offline if the sender is online and binds the notes to a pubkey under the receiver's control, effectively creating a kind of account (afaik)

The marketing of ecash, for better or worse, makes it sound like this is a significant improvement over other kinds of custodial wallets and magically does everything anyone using bitcoin would ever want to do ever and is better than best thing that has ever been best. It is better, relative to other custodians, in terms of:

1. privacy
2. programatic interop between custodians/mints (not unique to ecash but it the spec and its complications lend itself to a mono-implementation which is like a schelling point for interop)

But, in general and otherwise, ecash is either the same or worse when compared to other custodians.

So yes, we can. But no: if you're frustrated by lightning, us or anyone else doing anything with ecash won't change that anytime soon (in some distant future, given (2), if ecash support swells, you can imagine UX improving a lot though).

Calle is a scammer that hypes up circle jerking signatures to himself as innovation. His feed is an endless stream of larp bullshit. A pinko retard of the highest order.

ECash is not additive to Lightning in any way, it's just a lazy (fragile) authentication layer to a trusted server. Total gimmick.