pull down to refresh
You're effectively saying your coinbase account is non-custodial because there's a cookie in your browser
The mint can use any number of heuristics to programmatically block a specific redemption
Put down the kool-aid, it's a scam dude
Did you read the Wallet of Satoshi example? There is a difference in trade offs between database entry and ecash from a mint.
The mint can use any number of heuristics to programmatically block a specific redemption
I'll accept this could be the case, but heuristics don't sound like a sure thing.
Do you at least acknowledge that an ecash mint can only rug if they rug all users at once, whereas something like coinbase of WoS can rug one specific user if they like?
Yes and it demonstrates you have no idea how any of this works.
The trust level is the same, the privacy benefits are illusory.
Do you at least acknowledge that an ecash mint can only rug if they rug all users at once
No, that's retarded you would even think that. The gateway can execute any logic it wants.
Rugging has nothing to do with the gateway. Mints can rug. Gateways just choose to act as a gateway or don't. They have no effect on whether I continue to hold the ecash.
You say you are stating facts:
The trust level is the same, the privacy benefits are illusory.
This is your opinion. Demonstrate it with an example or something. Or discuss it further. Just saying it isn't fact.
From your OP
I trust WoS to update a spreadsheet they have that credits those sats to my account
do some fancy math to issue an ecash token
Before I make assumptions about what you are implying here, are you suggesting that Sats to ECash is less trusted than Sats to SQL Record?
No, I'm suggesting it results in different levels of visibility into the transactions that happen within the mint versus those that happen within the SQL database.
within the mint
That's not Bitcoin
Also WoS is just anonymous keys anyway so the benefit is a farce
I'm not arguing that ecash = bitcoin.
I specifically say it is not.
I'm arguing that ecash may be useful.
I don't agree that there is no difference between whatever database WoS runs on the back end and an ecash mint. I am under the impression that movements of ecash within the meant (meaning from one user to another) are not clearly visible to the mint. WoS can see all movements of all balances between users. Is this not the case?
No, with ecash the mint doesn't know who you are, nor does it know what specific tokens it issues you. All it knows is that somebody got some 32-sat token.
You remain with a nice useless gift card that you cannot redeem anywhere.
Minter remain with your sats.
That is pure rugpull definition.
ecash are gift cards, that's all.
It's true that the mint can rug or even just be dishonest like fiat banks. But unlike a fiat bank or a custodial wallet, a mint can't target a specific user.
Wrong, the server has several ways it could target a user
And wtf would you use a custodian you're worried about being targeted by?
Name two of those alleged ways.
It's elsewhere in the thread already had you bothered to read before opining, but ill do you the courtesy and add some others
Key Tweaking/Tainted rounds
Pattern Matching/Behavioral/Heuristics
Destination Blacklists
Behavioral Analysis
Metadata/Network
Spending Limits and Controls
Side-Channel Attacks
Fee Manipulation
If you think shitcoins somehow move the trust gradient of a custodian, it's time to get a clue
Key Tweaking/Tainted rounds
Hmm, that's a fair point. Is anybody here familiar enough with the Cashu or Fedimint protocols to say whether or not this is a concern?
Pattern Matching/Behavioral/Heuristics
How so? All the mint ever knows is that someone is redeeming one token in exchange for another or in exchange for the payment of a lightning invoice.
Destination Blacklists
In this case, someone else could run a gateway connected to the same mint.
Spending Limits and Controls
This is only possible for outgoing lightning, AFAICT. Internally, the only thing that happens is trading one token for another. This could be limited, though.
Side-Channel Attacks
Not sure what they are.
Fee Manipulation
Again, only a problem when exchanging to lightning.
I'm not saying that ecash is trustless, but it's better than custodial lightning wallets.
Is anybody here familiar enough
No, the implementations are all larps borrowing open libraries they don't understand
in exchange for the payment of a lightning invoice
Ingest of that invoice requires other metadata
someone else could run a gateway connected to the same mint
The mint is the chokepoint, daisy chaining them just makes it worse
This is only possible for outgoing lightning
No shit, what else are the shitcoins good for?
Not sure what they are.
ECash relies on ignorance to proliferate
it's better than custodial lightning wallets
No it isn't, it is custodial completely, with worse overhead, and is an attack on Lightning's network effect as a payment spec
Is it "inherently custodial"? If the mint turns off its servers, everyone's ecash from the mint is gone. I don't think this is the standard definition of custody.
The mint can indeed stop me from trading my ecash or even from the ecash existing at all, but only on the condition that the mint commits suicide.
This is a different trade off than typical custodians where the custodian can interfere with a specific user.