pull down to refresh
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?
Because you're being intellectually dishonest
Wallet of Satoshi is custodial. Cashu and Fedimint are not custodial.
On the one hand you say ECash isn't Bitcoin, then on the other you change your definition of what is being custodied.
If ECash is non-custodial, then so are JSON Web Tokens
If WoS is custodial (Bitcoin) then so are Shitcoin Mints (promising you Bitcoin)
Get a grip
He posted in the Bitcoin territory and used Wallet of Satoshi as an example
We already determined this should have been posted to ~lol because his point is ridiculous
I hardly conceded the point. I said suggesting that I post it in ~lol was a good comeback (which it was).
I do think we pretty much exhausted your line of reasoning. You don't believe ecash is any different than an SQL database.
While I agree that you can be rugged by the mint, I don't agree that the mint has the same level of insight into the ecash transactions that happen between users of the mint.
between users of the mint
Which we concluded was an appeal to mintstitutional use and has nothing to do with Bitcoin
But it's related to bitcoin. It's a way to scale bitcoin and make it easier to use between people who trust the same mint. Just like using bank notes instead of gold in the old days when bank notes were actually good.
Not any more than SQL is
Just like using bank notes instead of gold in the old days when bank notes were actually good.
They were never good, how exactly do you think we got central banking? By morons giving up their gold for bank notes.
Same will happen if we normalize mintstitutions over family nodes.
I think you describe my point fairly. As I've tried to make clear, I'm less interested in whether a person thinks ecash is useful or not, than I am with what ecash actually is and why in bitcoinland we seem to have decided that it was custodial rather than simply an altcoin that is pegged to bitcoin.
Because it's not pegged to Bitcoin
In the context of Bitcoin, it's custodial.
I'd say it's "soft pegged" to Bitcoin. Ideally it wouldn't deviate, but some issuers might be dishonest.
No, I do not think you have demonstrated that just because a token is pegged to another asset, users of that token expect it's issuer to act as custodians for that asset.
I might buy ecash with SATs, then use the ecash to buy a taco from someone willing to accept the ecash. If that person can pay for something else with the ecash, sats need never enter into the equation except as a means of establishing the value of the token.
You didn't answer my question.
This whole post is about the confusion caused by the very thing you are pointing out.
It matters whether people say the thing is bitcoin or whether it has a claim on a certain amount of bitcoin or whether it is worth a certain amount of bitcoin.
I'm arguing that ecash should say it can be sold for a certain amount of bitcoin not that it has a claim on a certain amount of bitcoin. Users can then decide whether it is worth it to them to sell their bitcoin in exchange for the ecash.
You posted in the Bitcoin territory carrying water for scammers that equate it with Bitcoin
It offers no utility beyond SQL
Your obsession with internal transactions and account balances is only relevant if we're talking large KYC institutions debt notes, if those are your goal posts there's no reasoning with you
Well, tony got rid of ecash territory. Where would you have preferred to see this posted?
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.
Allegedly, but can't be proven or taken as fact for all the reasons I already provided you.
It's a trusted server and there's no changing that, it's a scam.
All the ecash projects I've seen do say that you have to trust the mint operators. So I don't think it's a scam since no one is saying to trust a random mint.
They also shill it as being better because X, which it isn't
That's the scam
What's X?
From your OP
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?