475 sats \ 8 replies \ @supertestnet 17 Jan \ on: Chaumian ecash is the patricians choice.... bitcoin
It is not mathematically impossible and there are solutions to fee issues
We do not
It's a huge leap to say "lightning can't do it therefore custodians are the only way forward" -- there are non-custodial solutions in this world other than lightning you know
It does not. Shotgun kyc is a very popular model of introducing privacy violations and ecash does not fix it. An ecash mint can wait til it has a lot of users, then pull the rug on them: "No more transfers or withdrawals without kyc. Go to this site to submit your documents and restore access to your money."
It's like sending a phyical check over chat network
The person who receives it cannot redeem it without going through the chokepoint, the place where KYC can be applied
And if you choose not to immediately redeem it but just resign it and pass it along to the next fool, each subsequent holder is at the mercy of hoping a prior holder doesn't redeem it first
The chokepoint (i.e. the server) is the person who prevents doublespends, they are the person trusted by every user, and that is exactly the problem the bitcoin whitepaper was written to solve
Ecash is the problem. Bitcoin is the solution.
It's like sending a phyical check over chat network
well put, exactly right.
ecash doesn't have to become a chokepoint though. It may be prohibitively hard to get there, but having internet-native interoperable banks that use bitcoin as a backend will happen. They can either be financially regulated chokepoints, or wildcat banks out there in cyberspace. Mints have to be interoperable (there has to be a mint network) to be useful to their users (be able to redeem cash in many places) and reduce the likelihood of rug.
reply
they are the person trusted by every user
You realize ecash can be federated right? It's not a single person.
reply
Federations do not reduce trust
A federation is a group, and although I want to say groups are generally less trustworthy than individuals, that's not true either. They are equally unreliable unless you get to know them and assess their trustworthiness the old fashioned way.
It is, however, easier to get to know an individual than it is to get to know a group of individuals, therefore I personally prefer unfederated custodians -- because I can more easily get to know them first and determine their trustworthiness
reply
Federations do not reduce trust
This is retarded but to each their own I guess. Best of luck to you, nobody is forcing you to do something you don't want.
reply
Best of luck to you, nobody is forcing you to do something you don't want.
Yes, that is one of my favorite things
This is retarded
Why? Saying it is retarded does not make it so. If I am actually wrong about this I would like to do better
reply
deleted by author
reply
It is not mathematically impossible
7 tps = 220M per year. How to do more?
reply
batching
reply