pull down to refresh

It says right here

The mint is trusted in three ways:
it’s trusted not to lose/spend/steal all the funds backing the coins it issues;
it’s trusted to correctly use its private key when doing blind signatures; and
it’s trusted to accept coins it issues either to replace them for new coins when ecash is being transferred to a new owner, or to redeem it for the bitcoin it’s backed by.

So, it's based on trust?

reply

Yes, the risk of debasement is real.

Risk levels.

Least RiskGreatest Risk
BTCLNArk/MercuryLiquidFedimintseCashBitcoin Bank/CEX
reply

This is Gold 2.0!

reply

Do you mean xec coin?

@Rsync25 intriguing title! Can you ELI5?

reply

Calle is a scammer that gets paid by NGO's to pretend ECash is a layer of Bitcoin so that the banks can backdoor digital dollars into the ecosystem.

Calle made a tweet on the subject of ECash being a trustless layer of Bitcoin

AJTowns is a Core contributor with cryptography chops and is referencing Calle's tweet

Towns exposes the LARP in a subtle way that doesn't sound dismissive, likely knowing that Bitcoin is full of closet shitcoiners who fall for this crap and will earnestly try to understand the cryptography

Because the mint is trusted anyway, it is probably fine for the mint to perform a trusted setup for the zero-knowledge proofs here. After all, if the mint wants to steal funds, it can just spend the bitcoin, and shut all its servers down – no fancy cryptography required.

Calle responds with "I thought of that but I got a solution, just wait"

The result of this is more shady grant money will be wasted on non-Bitcoin development because banks are terrified of Lightning's ability to foster an economy outside of their custody.

deleted by author