Continuing on the theme from my previous post,
I dream of a world that has many thousands of Fedimints. Communities, families, wallet apps, businesses, etc. (Basically, there are countless use cases, some of which are also referred to here and elsewhere). Any person is a part of a single Fedimint and can easily arrive at any place and connect to a local Fedimint there, fund it with the ones they already belong to, and begin spending in that community. I believe that is why interoperability would be such a great feature. No one in your home community needs to know what you buy in the other community, nor do all parties in that community, only those you interact with. One can seamlessly go anywhere and spend their funds there.
52 sats \ 0 replies \ @joda 23 Jan
"No one in your home community needs to know what you buy in the other community, nor do all parties in that community, only those you interact with"
This is already the case--it doesn't matter which fedimint you use; the ecash protocol is private.
reply
5 sats \ 7 replies \ @kevin 22 Jan
Why do you want people to use non-custodial services? Seems like a step backwards. There are better solutions out there.
reply
10 sats \ 5 replies \ @Krv OP 22 Jan
There are tradeoffs. For small amounts of spending you don't need most secure computer the world has ever seen. Using high security has massive costs that are not necessary for simple spendings.
Also, good luck getting the world to use only non-custodial services. It' s a pipe dream founded in a disconnect with the nature of humanity.
Perfect is the enemy of the good.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kevin 23 Jan
Yes! There are. But this is not a place where we actually need to make a trade-off like this.
One can imagine someone building a similar experience to "Fedi" but instead of using a Fedimint as the underlying you use a mercurylayer statechain. Same end-user experience but non-custodial. 🤷♂️
Mercury exist today, it's not a pipe dream.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SqNr65 23 Jan
I mean.. as long as you're "dreaming of a world where...", I don't see why a self custodial, fully debasement-proof dream is any less valid than any other dream.
I think most of the things we basically take for granted about Bitcoin as it is today were absurd pipe dreams prior to the white paper. The Byzantine generals problem was thought to be unsolvable. The idea of separating money from state didn't even exist in anyone's mind.
If you're dreaming, dream big man.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @freetx 22 Jan
I think we need to be careful about fediments. I mean you do realize the Federal Reserve is literally a fedimint? (12 regional bank members).
I know your vision doesn't involve fractional reserve, however I think its wise to assume that over the long-term, all fedimints will succumb to fractional reserve. Its simply too enticing....I don't even mean that its evil people....there will be "new features" that allow you to "get an advance" from the fedimint....it will all happen with the best intentions and wind up recreating what we have now.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @fiatbad 22 Jan
Yea, but that's okay because the scale of "fractional reserve" simply cannot be as large and widespread as it is now. People wouldn't be forced to stay in one Mint the way they are today. There would be competition between mints. It would look more like the Free Banking Era than today's Federal Reserve Era.
I read the book "Sapiens" a few years back and I remember a large section about how the proliferation of credit was good for humanity. I am NOT defending fractional reserve banking, I despise it. But I think a case can be made that some fraction reserve is okay. Something like 90% reserves instead of the 5% banks have today.
You're right about the "new features" problem. But that goes both ways. There will also be many "new features" to allow more transparency within a Mint, and prevent corruption.
I agree with what @Krv just said above. Perfect is the enemy of the good. Fedemints, from my perspective, are looking like a really good solution with the right set of tradeoffs.
reply
2 sats \ 0 replies \ @Krv OP 22 Jan
Additional to what @fiatbad said, you can know, personally, those that run the fedimints you are involved in. You can interact with them directly. However, you have absolutely no personal knowledge or power to interact with those of the Federal Reserve.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Krv OP 22 Jan
Moreover, please list to me the solutions that exist that don't involve several steps and explanations for grandma to use?
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Krv OP 22 Jan
Follow up: Imagine you have a Fedimint run by people who you know and trust and care about you and vice verce and you want to go on a trip. In this system, you can spend your funds there, in a trust minimized fashion with amounts you only need for the trip. Meanwhile, it doesn't affect your relationship with the original Fedimint.
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @cyberpunk02 22 Jan
working on it 👀
reply