I have mixed feelings about this note. Let me see if I can explain. Here's how it starts:

I really like ecash. It solves a lot of my problems (being lazy and not wanting to run a lightning node and easy onboarding to the experience of internet microtransactions). However, there is a problem: I don't agree that ecash is the same as bitcoin.

The gift card model of thinking about ecash (#397764) makes the most sense to me, and it is true that we call the balances held in gift card tokens "dollars" or "euros." If someone gives you an Amazon gift card, you don't say "Oh, my! 200 Amazon points? You shouldn't have!" We call them dollars.

This is troubling though because they aren't dollars. You can only use them at Amazon. You can' t spend them anywhere else. You can trade the gift card to someone else, but it will certainly be at a discount from the face value.

First off: Bitcoin is already confusing enough for the general population. Adding a new thing where we say --here are your "ecash tokens" which you can think of more or less as the same as satoshis unless you don't trust the mint -- is not a workable proposition.

The whole problem here is that bitcoin is difficult to use in a self-sovereign manner if you don't want to run a server. But microtransactions are a use case that has a lot of potential to attract new users. No one else is delivering this zap experience online. It really is magic internet money. The easier this experience is, the more likely we see widespread adoption of Bitcoin.