539 sats \ 11 replies \ @supertestnet 23 Jan \ on: Fedimint and Cashu ecash are gift cards ecash
Correction:
| Fedi | Cashu | Liquid | WoS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Can you be frozen? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Addendum:
| Fedi | Cashu | Liquid | WoS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Susceptible to shotgun KYC? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Fedi, Cashu, and Liquid can all freeze their users' assets by refusing to automatically process any further transfers or withdrawals by anyone. They can then introduce shotgun KYC for their users to reacquire access to their funds.
On a related note, here is what your second footnote says:
Here it is modified to apply to fedimint:
Go ahead and apply that to Bitcoin miners then too instead of selecting choosing what to apply it to based on things that you do not like.
reply
Go ahead and apply that to Bitcoin miners then too
Done. It applies to them too
instead of selecting choosing what to apply it to based on things that you do not like
I only applied it to fedimint and liquid, both of which I like. I like fedimint a bit better than liquid and I want to incorporate it into some of my projects
reply
Fedimint uses a sql database.
Wrong. It's not SQL.
They can collude to prevent your transactions from becoming entries in their database.
Wrong. Signatures are what makes ecash valid and anyone can validate and transfer signed ecash at will. Just like the cash you like using. Entries are made to prevent double spending, not to validate transactions.
reply
Wrong. It's not SQL.
What a pity
Signatures are what makes ecash valid and anyone can validate and transfer signed ecash at will
To me, the transfer is not finalized til the fedimint reissues the ecash for its new owner
Otherwise it's a set of "bearer assets" held by several people rather than a bearer "asset" held by one
Just like the cash you like using
Except with ecash that was only handed over, not burned/reissued, two people can have a copy
reply
super, I've seen you comment on another fedi post (sorry can't find rn) something to the effect of 'we can come up with better scaling solutions that dont rely on custodians'. what can you point us to that's in the wild/usable today? state chains?
reply
what can you point us to that's in the wild/usable today?
Here are my top 6 favorite scaling solutions that work right now:
- Lightning [your own node - self custodial]
- Statechains [custodial by default but can be self-custodial if the operator is honest, I don't know any way to verify that though]
- Fedimint-run-by-one-person [custodial, no caveats]
- Fedimint-run-by-a-federation [custodial, no caveats]
- Federated sidechains [custodial, no caveats]
- Lightning [someone else's node -- custodial, no caveats]
I like all of these options.
I am working on others, including bitvm, that are not ready yet. I wish it will be better than lightning. But I can't be sure yet, or even confident. We'll see.
reply
thank you sir. I took from other comment that you were against all these current scaling options, particularly fedimints, is that the case?
I'm interested in fedimints to see what they offer. But I have also been reading about statechains. I'm not technical enough to really get all of them, I just want to play with them all and see.
I'm really looking forward to what gets built out over next decade or so ☺
reply
I took from other comment that you were against all these current scaling options, particularly fedimints, is that the case?
No, I think fedimints are incredibly cool, probably the biggest breakthrough in multisig technology in the last five years. I particularly like that the fedimint software was designed from the ground up to support lightning without the members of the fedimint needing to trust the lightning node operator with their money. That gives it similar properties to a federated lightning node and can probably serve a lot of the same use cases. I also think Mutiny deserves some kind of award for integrating it into their wallet. They are doing amazing things and I'm very proud of them.
I just don't like hiding the risks. The fedimint software is just as custodial as the software Coinbase uses to manage their multisig vault. Telling people that a fedimint "counts" as non-custodial (or close enough) seems dangerous to me and is likely to get people rekt. If folks are fooled into thinking fedimints are inherently safer than "regular" custodians, I predict scammers will soon run fedimint software to steal people's funds under the guise of "you can deposit your money here, it's safe, it's a fedimint, stealing your money would be super duper hard!" Unfortunately it's all too easy, because it's custodial software.
I know that when I go into rants like that it sounds like I disapprove of custodial software such as fedimints. But I don't disapprove of them. I think they are very cool and useful, I just want users to be clear about the risks and know that it is experimental custodial software, and, like all custodial software (and most non-custodial software too), if they put any money in it, they should be prepared to lose it.
reply
right, that makes total sense. thank you.
I think I agree with you about needing to make risks as apparent as possible. I don't like the risk of their supply not being auditable.
I'm also mad keen to see what happens with mutiny, can't wait.
reply
These are excellent points.
I included the permissionless exit question to get at this, but I think "Can you be shotgun KYCd?" Is better.
I should also change the long version of the question Can you be frozen? to "Can you be prevented from moving your money around within the protocol without shutting down the whole thing?"
There is a difference between freezing a person's account and shutting down the entire service/protocol. If a business has to shut down in order to freeze you, they aren't freezing you, they are ceasing to operate.
Also: can fedimint guardians collude to deanonymize me or target my specific ecash tokens, or is their collusion limited to not adding any new entries to their database? If it is the latter, I think it is fundamentally different than liquid where functionaries could target specific transactions to exclude from blocks.
Specifically targeted freezing is far more dangerous in my mind.
With ecash, they can't tell which tokens are mine and that gives me a little power that I don't have in any of the other systems.
reply
can fedimint guardians collude to deanonymize me or target my specific ecash tokens
No, they can not. It's either applied to all or applied to none. Anonymous bearer tokens have incredibly great privacy.
reply