1504 sats \ 17 replies \ @supertestnet 12 Feb \ on: Ecash is just digital fiat. Change my mind bitcoin
The bitcoin whitepaper criticizes ecash on page 2:
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:
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.
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.
reply
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.
reply
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.
reply
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.
reply
I agree, we shouldn't settle.
reply
Very well said
reply
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?
reply
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
reply
reply
reply
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"
reply
reply
how does it imply that?
reply
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.
reply
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.
Perhaps, in the future, billions can have keys to a utxo without the negatives you mention
Keys are abundant, blockspace is scarce
I strive for a future where you can acquire a key to a utxo without paying a large cost to create tthat utxo, and thus, without paying a large cost for blockspace
I suspect "blockspace cost" can be divided among a utxo's keyholders so finely that every member considers their share of the cost low and reasonable. Musig utxos, coinjoins, my bitpac software, and Ark seem like promising steps in this direction.
I also suspect ownership of a utxo can be transferred without moving that utxo at all. Lightning demonstrates this. I suspect statechains can be improved upon to do it even better, and I hope one day to make joinpools that do it too.