I'm still learning about eCash but this aligns with what I know about the various implementations. I have also heard this from some of the people working on it. The honest ones. The issue in many things and also bitcoin is that people are lazy and mostly repeat second hand info and often incorrectly. These people will may pay a price for their mistakes.
65 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheWildHustle 19 Apr
I'm pretty much there as well.
I'd like to see a world where wallets have a mix of lightning and small mints or federations holding under 5k sats. Mutiny does a nice job giving the user the ability to make the tradeoff decisions for themselves.
Paying a lightning invoice from multiple mints would enable paying a 1k sat invoice across 20 custodians holding less bitcoin than what stackers hold on SN. Distributing trust across multiple custodians is still a custodial solution, but no one is opening a lightning channel to receive 57 sats from npub384q53454352. Once a freak has enough corn, he'll be have the ability to be more sovereign with his funds.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 19 Apr
Who is that? Seems no one seems to be working on it based on honest narratives.
ECash could be useful between a client and a server in place of API tokens, but that's not what its being shilled as.
The ECash narrative is based on lies about privacy, bitcoin affinity, and as payment rails. It goes hand-in-hand with the coordinated FUD over Lightning and gets massive funding by very sus NGO's- even in dollarized forms despite donations being for Bitcoin development.
Fact is, the state apparatus can live with Bitcoin as savings tech because they control the institutions... but if it enters the economy that is much less able to be controlled. ECash is a spook op for digital dollars, nobody would care about it for what it's good at: API's.
reply