Ecash is just digital fiat. Change my mind \ stacker news ~bitcoin

Ecash is just digital fiat. Change my mind

14.8k sats \ 25k boost \ 116 comments \ @BlueSlime 11 Feb bitcoin

Zero custody. You give up your bitcoin for a non-binding digital IOU from the mint.
No ledger. The mint can print as many IOUs as they want and inflate the supply.
100% centralized. Only the issuing mint can redeem your IOU, regardless of how many members it has.
Impossible to audit. The mint can spend your bitcoin in secret and debase your IOU, and you will never know.

I thought we built bitcoin to get away from all this fiat nonsense. What the heck is going on?

p.s reposting here since this was removed from /ecash sub.

1504 sats \ 17 replies \ @supertestnet 12 Feb

The bitcoin whitepaper criticizes ecash on page 2:

A common solution is to introduce a trusted central authority, or mint, that checks every transaction for double spending. ...only coins issued directly from the mint are trusted not to be double-spent. The problem with this solution is that the fate of the entire money system depends on the company running the mint, with every transaction having to go through them, just like a bank.

Bitcoin is intended as the solution to this problem. Nonetheless, I think the same whitepaper correctly points out that for most transactions, a bank is fine:

Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. ... [This] system works well enough for most transactions.

To me, one of the great things about bitcoin is that it's an option for everyone failed by banks, including mints. But most people are not failed by them, in fact most people seem to prefer banks (and maybe someday mints). Making the best possible mint/bank software therefore seems like a useful task that can improve the lives of billions. And for those also-imporant billions whom banks don't want to or can't serve, bitcoin is there for them.

65 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 12 Feb

Making the best possible mint/bank software therefore seems like a useful task that can improve the lives of billions. And for those also-imporant billions whom banks don't want to or can't serve, bitcoin is there for them.

Good point. And that's why I wrote this guide about ecash (including your nice presentation video) making a use case scenario where a local merchant could distribute his own ecash mints among his customers, from a local community.

325 sats \ 3 replies \ @BlueSlime OP 12 Feb

One the one hand, I agree with you.

But Satoshi wasn't satisfied with ecash, and built bitcoin instead.

I refuse to be complacent about ecash and think there's still more that can be done on bitcoin and lightning.

110 sats \ 0 replies \ @supertestnet 12 Feb

Ecash is an inherently imperfect system due to its trust issues, so I want to build better things on top of bitcoin, and I suspect you agree. But I recommend against letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. I think ecash is good-but-imperfect, and there are circumstances where it is the best option available, at least for now. I will keep working to make better things, but in the meantime, wherever ecash is an imperfect but good solution, I will try to use it and be thankful -- and keep working to make better things.

238 sats \ 0 replies \ @Se7enZ 12 Feb

I think the value proposition here is to encourage more of an actual free market for "banks" or "mints" themselves. ecash is not a trustless solution, but it does reduce the barrier to entry for a group of individuals collaborating to participate in a global economy (a la Fedimint). They've got to run their software, secure their hardware and fund the mint. The value proposition really shines when the participants are locally proximal to each other -- like a neighborhood or local community. If/when the trust breaks down, things can be settled face to face, and over lightning, it should be almost painless to move to a new mint, or migrate funds up the scaling layers ecash -> lightning -> bitcoin if one is feeling insecure about the community or suspecting a bank run. And that's not to mention, the elimination of regulatory barriers to spin up a new financial institution.

Again, it's not a perfect solution, and it has me still with mixed feelings WRT the sovereignty maximalist voice, but it does seem to be an experiment worth tinkering around with. I'm reminded of the supposed origin ethos in the creation of Craigslist, given all the concern about meeting up IRL with "random strangers on the internet" -- that he believed "people were generally good to each other". Perhaps instead of trusting absolutely nobdy, it is a benefit to have easy options to choose who to trust, like family, friends and local community.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Kathleen_Croteau 12 Feb

I agree, we shouldn't settle.

110 sats \ 0 replies \ @030a29f333 12 Feb

Very well said

10 sats \ 10 replies \ @Scoresby 12 Feb

This is a reasonable point of view. I agree with this.

Curious, though: how many years away do you think we are from billions of self-sovereign users of bitcoin?

61 sats \ 9 replies \ @supertestnet 12 Feb

how many years away do you think we are from billions of self-sovereign users of bitcoin?

I don't think it will happen

One reason why is that I think billions of people prefer to use easy things

And I, for one, keep making bitcoin harder and harder to use

I don't foresee any reversal of this trend, though I hope for one

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 12 Feb

Also, you should make this your superhero catchphrase:

making bitcoin harder to use

You are already somewhat of a legend, this would solidify it.

10 sats \ 7 replies \ @Scoresby 12 Feb

And for those also-imporant billions whom banks don't want to or can't serve, bitcoin is there for them.

Is the above then referring to ecash or some other scaling solution that doesn't provide same self-sovereignty guarantees?

How is bitcoin there for them?

90 sats \ 6 replies \ @supertestnet 12 Feb

I think it is good that the option exists even if the masses dislike it

It is there for them to reject or accept, and I suspect the masses will continue to reject it for the foreseeable future, not due to ignorance, but due to trying it and concluding "this sucks worse than the old thing"

10 sats \ 5 replies \ @Scoresby 12 Feb

This implies that bitcoin will only be an option for people as long as it isn't adopted by too many.

10 sats \ 4 replies \ @supertestnet 12 Feb

how does it imply that?

10 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby 12 Feb

For bitcoin to be self sovereign, you must hold your own keys to a utxo.

If too many new people want bitcoin, getting a utxo will become very difficult, costly, time-consuming.

Presumably, there is some number at which the cost and wait-time to get a transaction confirmed is so high, that it is effectively not an option for most people, possibly even rich people.

I think this means you cannot say it is available to billions unless we are sure that it won't become popular as described above in my comment.

Can't resist adding this turn of phrase:

Bitcoin is only available to billions if it isn't used by billions.

view replies

498 sats \ 11 replies \ @Scoresby 11 Feb

It's better than Wallet of Satoshi.

Bitcoin is digital cash without a third party. But in order for this to be true you need to:

hold your own keys
run a node
verify and broadcast your own transactions

Lightning is bitcoin you can settle almost instantly and send tiny amounts. But in order for this to be true you need to:

hold your own keys
run a lightning node (of some kind)
manage channels and liquidity

And on nostr, everyone uses WoS which is none of the above.

I don't think ecash is bitcoin. But it is a way to build on top of bitcoin that lets us have access to some of bitcoin's awesome properties. It is better than WoS and leaps and bounds better than credit cards and central banking. And many of the projects being built on it are designing for interoperability with bitcoin.

I'm here to see what it can help with.

254 sats \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin 11 Feb

It's better than Wallet of Satoshi.

Yes, this is the simplest explanation of cashu. Is not perfect, but is working. I can even do better coinjoins through ecash than regular onchain coinjoins. I challenge everybody to do the test to trace himself, if it can. It is not possible. Suck this monero and coinjoin losers...

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheWildHustle 11 Feb

Let’s Go!

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @nikotsla 12 Feb

Suck this monero

You get me with this.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @yo2xncv0 19 Feb

Ecash is like being cucked by a guy wearing a blindfold. He's blindfolded...but you're still being cucked.

But I'm happy you're into that that stuff bro, no judgement

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @piecover 12 Feb

100%

42 sats \ 4 replies \ @BlueSlime OP 11 Feb

You can at least audit a lightning channel.

152 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 11 Feb

We don't have to compare LN with ecash. Are totally different things. Yes, ecash works over LN and depend on LN to "travel" or being redeemed. But ecash will NEVER replace LN. People should stop considering ecash (cashu or fedishit) as "replacement" of LN. That is idiocy. Ecash is simply digital gift cards.

302 sats \ 2 replies \ @BlueSlime OP 12 Feb

yeah I don't really have anything against ecash. the cryptography is cool and anyone can make a mint.

but it is fiat incarnate and the propaganda to dupe people is already circulating

also the tech is a dead-end for freedom money and a cop-out for dealing with current challenges. I don't like it when good engineers give up on going to the moon and decide to build a tower of babel instead.

110 sats \ 0 replies \ @cascdr 12 Feb

Captures my sentiment exactly.

To quote JFK: We do these things because they are hard.

Ecash seems like a band aid at best with possible serious negative ramifications for rug pulls/earning trust. We have enough problems in those areas.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 12 Feb

the propaganda to dupe people is already circulating

yes that is concerning....

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @piecover 12 Feb

Agreed

206 sats \ 0 replies \ @hasherstacker 11 Feb

Fiat is for the weak. Whether physical or digital. Bitcoin is for the brave, free and sovereign.

Can't change your mind. Truth truth

185 sats \ 4 replies \ @Fabs 11 Feb

Yeah, I too fail to see why there's so much hype for it.

130 sats \ 3 replies \ @BlueSlime OP 11 Feb

I think a lot of folks that oversold lightning are now backpedaling into fiat banking and pretending its a scaling solution

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby 12 Feb

Would you consider bitcoin a failure if there is no way to scale the self-sovereignty guarantees of the base layer to 1 billion users?

160 sats \ 1 reply \ @BlueSlime OP 12 Feb

I think as long as the game theory holds and Bitcoin replaces fiat as the global reserve currency, then humanity wins.

It may turn out that we need ecash for the last mile of money transmission, but I'm not ready to abandon lightning for fiat mints

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 12 Feb

Definitely. Hopefully the lightning doom and gloom will blow over. I certainly find it useful.

Anyway, thanks for asking the OP question and starting this whole discussion. Always come away from these with new understandings.

185 sats \ 0 replies \ @JesseJames 11 Feb

anything centralized and "trust" have proved to fail over time, hands down. This "nice product" is rug ready...lol IMHO

150 sats \ 5 replies \ @WeAreAllSatoshi 11 Feb

It was removed? It doesn’t appear that ~ecash is moderated

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @BlueSlime OP 11 Feb

Yeah I'm not sure what happened to the post. It could be a technical issue.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 12 Feb

It was downvoted there, with enough downvotes to get it outlawed. It's a global SN feature, the ecash territory is not centrally moderated. Some are.

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 12 Feb

It was downvoted there, with enough downvotes to get it outlawed

wow that's stupid. Why an important post is downvoted like that? I think the downvoting feature should be used only onto shitcoiners.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlueSlime OP 12 Feb

hahaha that is pretty cool actually

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @WeAreAllSatoshi 12 Feb

Ah yes, outlawed. Forgot about that

1031 sats \ 9 replies \ @deerwhisper 11 Feb

If you watch these 3 videos and still think ecash = digital fiat then idk

21 sats \ 8 replies \ @BlueSlime OP 11 Feb

all of my points still stand. Plus I don't think anyone linked in your vids refute them either.

121 sats \ 4 replies \ @byzantine 12 Feb

e cash is a rug waiting to happen

10 sats \ 3 replies \ @joda 12 Feb

Only one mint at a time. But also, that's not the efficient way to steal with a mint. You can just print yourself money and keep it going.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @byzantine 12 Feb

yes, develop trust at a mint then run it quietly at a fraction of reserves for a long long time in secret

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Kathleen_Croteau 12 Feb

What is the most trusted mint? Is there a directory anywhere?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @deerwhisper 12 Feb

Wouldn't put any sort of trust in a mint right now. We're still very early days for eCash on Bitcoin. If you want to play around with Cashu (knowing the chance of losing funds is there) I suggest Minibits or Enuts

42 sats \ 2 replies \ @030a29f333 12 Feb

Lyn talks a bit about ways that mints could be audited (to some degree). It's an evolving topic.

Would also say a fedimint with multiple guardians isnt 100℅ centralized. Centralization is a spectrum, removing a single point of failure is a reduction in centralization IMO. It's still far more centralized than Bitcoin, but there's tradeoffs (good and bad)

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @joda 12 Feb

Yes but it's 100 percent custodial.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @030a29f333 12 Feb

Yes. Anyone claiming it's not is a red flag IMO. But custodial and centralized are 2 separate considerations

389 sats \ 2 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 12 Feb

I hope everyone here realizes that you're using a custodial service with an amount of sats that wouldn't make sense to try to self custody on Bitcoin or in lightning. One where the operator knows everyone's balances and transactions. One where it is trivial to selectively nullify that balance with a single unilateral action.

Ecash fixes this, and federated ecash distributes this even further.

110 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 12 Feb

Wen ecash air miles?

This may sound a little flippant; I don't mean it to be.

In some cases btc (even on lightning) doesn't work well and neither do dollars (the most non internet native money since cowries), so we get "points."

Ecash is a heck of a lot better than points for reasons listed above and because it could be a standard that allows for interoperability.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 12 Feb

Ecash fixes this, and federated ecash distributes this even further.

Agreed. Ecash is a quite elegant way to fix those issues. Nevertheless ecash it doesn't have to be used by everybody, every bitcoiner. Only in specific cases where is really needed. And the beauty of it is that nobody is forcing you to use it, is fully inter-communicating with regular LN apps.

121 sats \ 5 replies \ @pillar 11 Feb

Ecash custodians are better than regular custodians.

You are missing the point. No decent ecash developer in the bitcoin scene is stating that ecash is non-custodial.

231 sats \ 3 replies \ @BlueSlime OP 11 Feb

the top post of /ecash is a claim that ecash is self-custodial.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 12 Feb

I truly believe federated ecash (fedimint) operates more like a different network entirely, one that you swap Bitcoin for and you need to self custody that ecash asset. That network is distributed with not a single operator that can unilaterally make decisions in that network.

Not everyone agrees with me, but compared to other technologies and law, this is what I believe.

200 sats \ 1 reply \ @BlueSlime OP 12 Feb

I know that you do and you just want to deliver the best freedom wallet experience to your users. You even go out of your way to return funds when others rug themselves on a channel close.

I am just here to respectfully rain on the ecash parade. I don't want it to steal thunder from the lightning network.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Krv 12 Feb

Why do you consider it adversarial? They are tools that do different things. They complement each other.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @vindard 12 Feb

Well, one of the guys building with fedimint is #383702

110 sats \ 1 reply \ @DiedOnTitan 12 Feb

On chain transactions do not scale beyond 7 transactions per second. If we want use cases beyond SoV including a full fledged global currency, we will need to make some concessions. Different wallets serve different use cases.

Prime HODL wallet. Stays cold. Don't use it for anything beyond large infrequent on chain transactions that justify high tx cost. This is your sovereign vault and most secured wallet.
Hot wallet(s) (custodial) for spending cash and making small frequent transactions. This is typically Layer 2 (Lightning, Ecash e.g.) This is your day to day cash on hand wallet - small transactions, tiny fees. In theory, you trust the custodian. Rug pull? Stings in principle, but should not materially hurt you financially.
Keep a staging wallet between your hot and cold wallet. This wallet is non-custodial, and you use it for DCA inputs or bitcoin receipts and it funds your hot wallet with the minimum required, and if or when it builds up enough value to transfer to prime HODL, then you transfer there for cold storage.

Let's say the mint is Starbucks, or Amazon.com or your local farmer's market. They have a reputation to maintain and they have earned some people's trust. If they offer an Ecash solution that enables people to move from fiat and fiat gift cards to bitcoin backed IOUs, is this not a win for Bitcoin? Yes, there are custodial shortcomings and it violates the principle of NYKNYC, but that seems like a worthy tradeoff to help scale Bitcoin based transactions FAR beyond 7 TPS.

Again, we would advise people to keep the minimum in their Hot Wallet because NYKNYC.

16 sats \ 0 replies \ @Krv 12 Feb

Yes, you don't need to most secure network to ever exist to buy a coffee.

200 sats \ 0 replies \ @TNStacker 11 Feb

https://darthcoin.substack.com/p/bitcoin-adoption-using-ecash

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @_b_o_n_e_s_ 12 Feb

Fiat money is a type of currency that is not backed by a commodity, such as gold or silver. It is typically designated by the issuing government to be legal tender, and is authorized by government regulation. wikipedia

Ecash does not come into existence or is issued through government decree, so its not digital fiat.

Also, in theory at least, ecash is backed by bitcoin.

I'm not trying to change your mind. I have issues with ecash as well. I just think when arguing online, the right words are important.

26 sats \ 0 replies \ @nicosey 11 Feb

Rome was not built in a day...

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @piecover 12 Feb

Agreed with most of these critics, but no body is claiming Ecash isn't all these things. The only diference here is that there is no bailouts in the event of a bank-run on the mint. Just like Tether-usd is an other fiat currency on a blockchain but there is an important demand for it so be it. Let the free market find it's own way. Again there is no bailouts coming from the Bitcoin base chain, so all the actors on the top layers must be honest or else fail. You don't have to use it if you don't like it, but maybe some less fortunates people in africa or latin america desprately need it to survive the day to day life.

121 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture 12 Feb

Yup I’m not seeing it. Zero value as the use cases don’t hold up. Hard pass!

103 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 12 Feb

Because all the bitcoin influencers say so!

How dare you not agree

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @nullama 11 Feb

It's hard to make money from Bitcoin because you have to provide value to get value.

That's why we see all these shitcoins where the creator gets all the money for nothing.

103 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlueSlime OP 11 Feb

you can tell its a bull market when there's a bunch of hyped projects that want to take your bitcoin and give you a new token printed from nothing

205 sats \ 0 replies \ @joda 12 Feb

I am hopeful cryptography and clever devs will figure this out.

I think there needs to be a standard for a mint which allows for auditing of outstanding ecash to BTC vaulted. It would still be custodial, but you could run it yourself. If all mints were run this way, there would be interoperability.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @DiracDelta 12 Feb

Ok, let me just provide the short answer: e-cash is fiat where you can shoot the central bankers in the head if they fuck you, and they know this.

I will let others dispute your "impossible to audit" claim.

21 sats \ 4 replies \ @GregAsks 12 Feb

"100% centralized." - Disagree, you can create mint if you want (there is no single mint)...

The rest is true 🤝

1 sat \ 3 replies \ @BitByBit21 14 Feb

Agreed, I easily created my own mint on LNBits using my own node just for test purposes and it works just fine. This could be an initial solution for friends and family who trust me and don't feel comfortable using other tools. Of course I can rug them, but they know that so it's a trade-off.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @GregAsks 15 Feb

That's why I think that liquid is shitcoin (central control).

1 sat \ 1 reply \ @BitByBit21 15 Feb

The case of Liquid would be closer to the coming Fedimint since it is federated. It still requires some level of trust in exchange for some additional features, but at least on Fedimint you would be able to know who can rug yoy.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @GregAsks 16 Feb

IMO Federation gave a false sense of safety. Something like government take care of your money better than you...

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @KLT 12 Feb

There will be tradeoffs with all scaling solutions for better or worse.

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 11 Feb

I do not backed in any way the use of ecash. Yes is custodial. Everybody knows that. Are just digital gift cards.

Saying that... in some use cases could push for bitcoin adoption.

Yes, ecash is not for OG botcoiners. They really do not need it. But think about those poor guys in African continent, when they cannot afford opening a decent LN channel.

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @BlueSlime OP 11 Feb

the top post of /ecash is a claim that ecash is self-custodial

Africa is poor because of fiat banking and currency manipulation. What is a digital fiat mint going to fix?

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 11 Feb

deleted by author

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 13 Feb

Africa is poor for many reasons, the most important is a lack of human capital

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @calle 22 Feb

p.s reposting here since this was removed from /ecash sub.

Why was it removed from /ecash? This is clearly a legit ecash discussion.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @yo2xncv0 19 Feb

pure facts

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @chapped 17 Feb

ecash with Cashu is very useful for letting friends and family use your lightning channels you have setup until more bitcoin scaling is developed.

Cashu is more like a gift card than fiat. #397764

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @doofus 16 Feb

While I hold strong convictions about Bitcoin's self-sovereign potential, I believe that solutions like ecash might hold value as transitional tools within specific contexts. For those still reliant on traditional banking systems, a well-implemented ecash solution could act as a stepping stone towards greater financial autonomy. As infrastructure development and user-interface improvements progress on Bitcoin and Lightning, perhaps these intermediate solutions can become naturally less appealing. Could projects aiming to develop the best possible ecash infrastructure adopt practices that actively encourage a gradual transition toward trust-minimized Bitcoin solutions?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Krv 12 Feb

fiat[ fee-aht, -at; fahy-uht, -at ] noun an authoritative decree, sanction, or order: a royal fiat. No one has decreed that you use ecash. You are using the word fiat to mean something else.

Ecash is a tool for achieving an end. Use it for that end up to the point you fell comfortable with the risk of funds loss.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @garyKrause_ 12 Feb

Did you just describe Stacker News?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @_vnprc 12 Feb

it is entirely possible to audit ecash liabilities: https://gist.github.com/callebtc/ed5228d1d8cbaade0104db5d1cf63939

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @benthecarman 12 Feb

It is but currently it's the best way to scale bitcoin unless we get some soft forks

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @fm 12 Feb

Economy is not a closed system,

So, as bitcoin permeates the FIAT world, the FIAT world also permeates bitcoin,

You are rigth, ecash doesnt drift too much from the FIAT model. Its the model we dominate best and MrSmith keeps pushing

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @teodor 12 Feb

I think is almost the same with PayPal and Revolut...?! Centralised and unsafe for your bitcoin and other cryptos.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @mallardshead 12 Feb

deleted by author

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @mallardshead 12 Feb

deleted by author

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @TheBTCManual 12 Feb

I agree it has a lot of centralising and trust factors, and maybe this tech is better suited for those who want to trust, like an uncle jim setup, or a community like a circular economy, giving them the tools to manage their own little bank where trust is already established

Here in South Africa group savings is a massive thing, holding billions, communities, groups, families all get together and save together, pull loans from it based on agreements, not that there aren't scammers, but this is handled within the community, even our local banks offer products to help this type of community fund pooling

This is where I see something like fedi/ecash finding its niche

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @BlueSlime OP 12 Feb

I would agree with you if you could audit the mint.

What bothers me is that we aren't seeing ecash 2.0 with problems solved, we are seeing ecash 1.0 with new marketing.

Satoshi built and tested proof of work before he published the white paper.

This ecash parade is being rushed down the street with tired old problems. At least try to fix the lack of accountability.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual 12 Feb

I don't disagree with you there, I don't see this as even close to a finished product that I'd propose as a solution for custody of funds

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @byzantine 12 Feb

correct 💯

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 11 Feb

deleted by author

177 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 11 Feb

Security model:

Greatest						Least
BTC	LN	Ark/Mercury	Liquid	Fedimint	eCash	Bitcoin Bank

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @03479d0ee6 11 Feb

It's just custodial lightning like WoS with the added benefit of privacy and offline usage. It's not an ecash thing, it's just lightning. The advantage over fiat is that you can choose who to trust, anyone can run a mint, could be someone you know, unlike a bank, and you can move your funds quickly. But yes I get your point, onchain bitcoin and running your node for lightning are the most trustless options, but dealing with lightning is very hard, onchain might be expensive so people go to custodial solutions. This is a problem if onchain fees get too high and becomes hard to self custody.

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @BlueSlime OP 11 Feb

you can audit a lightning channel. ecash cannot be audited at all.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @03479d0ee6 12 Feb

Can't audit WoS.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @BlueSlime OP 12 Feb

It's at least possible though if they published their channel states. Ecash mints are impossible to audit as it stands.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 13 Feb

How do you audit their liabilities? And you realize it would be foolish to back 1:1 user balance with LN channels, right?

So "audit their lighting" means absolutely nothing.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @feelancer21 11 Feb

Ecash is a way for decentralizing third party custody.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlueSlime OP 11 Feb

yes it is very easy to create a mint. there's no ledger or database required.

I don't have anything against ecash as a technology, but people should know the truth and not be misled

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Eobard 11 Feb

deleted by author

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlueSlime OP 11 Feb

I don't know. I don't fully get territories yet so I'm not sure why it was removed.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Eobard 11 Feb

deleted by author

110 sats \ 1 reply \ @BlueSlime OP 11 Feb

yes this is 100% the case.

ecash is just a blind signature that can be issued and verified by the mint

there is no ledger or independent way to audit the supply of these signatures

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 13 Feb

You can audit. It's not 100% verifiable, but it can help catch fishy behavior. A lot of free baking theory and competitive banking/hedge funds come into the equation.

Also programmatic bank runs and scheduled expirations help this.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SaToSHiWoMaN 13 Feb outlawed

stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SaToSHiWoMaN 12 Feb outlawed

stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.