18 sats \ 15 replies \ @sethforprivacy OP 31 May \ parent \ on: Summarizing my thoughts on ecash bitcoin
The difference here is that Monero is it's own, stand-alone currency with powerful privacy features. It's not an IOU for anything, it has all of it's own properties. BTC <-> XMR is a currency exchange, while depositing Bitcoin at a mint to get ecash is being given an IOU that is worthless if the underlying Bitcoin disappears.
Who will take ecash from a mint that has no Bitcoin to back it? As opposed to Monero, where it has it's own direct value and has thousands of merchants and users directly accepting it.
Ecash is not a "coin" it's an IOU. Those are wildly different things and are not comparable.
The difference here is that Monero is it's own, stand-alone currency with powerful privacy features
Literally no difference. You're nit picking because you have XMR bags. It's so funny watching you walk around in circles around this. You're literally giving up custody of Bitcoin to hold a shitty asset that's heading to zero.
reply
To be fair, a cashu ecash mint does suffer from a single point of failure, in a way that monero does not. I don't know enough about monero to say whether a fedimint with something like 7 guardians is closer to the cashu side of things or the monero side. But I think it's a valid point that mints are generally susceptible to servers going offline while that's not really a concern with something like monero.
reply
whether a fedimint with something like 7 guardians is closer to the cashu side of things or the monero side
That's an argument for spectrums of decentralized. You can say a network is more decentralized or less decentralized than another network.
At the end of the day, they're the same thing. A DLT network.
reply
No you just don't like my responses because they don't fit your narrative. As seen in your strawman reply instead of a real response.
reply
Yeah bro post more fake screenshots of fake quotes from politicians to try to defend your XMR bags and bash privacy tech.
reply
wut lol
Dude, take a step back and calm down. We don't have to both love the same custodial tools to be reasonable and actually have conversations.
reply
reply
I've responded at length to that, many times. It's an asinine take that is dangerous and disingenuous and will lead to people hating Bitcoin because they think Bitcoin lost their money when it was really a malicious mint or a gov rug pull.
reply
Literally no difference? You can take custody of your Monero, and the network is decentralized, but ecash tokens are without value once the mint is taken over.
reply
You take custody of the ecash notes too. How much value is xmr when a 51% attack happens and the network is useless?
reply
ecash notes don't have any value without the trusted party!!
reply
You realize with fedimint, it is a decentralized network?
reply
When btc and xmr were just getting started, there were not thousands of merchants and users.
The major difference that I can see between your definition of coin and an IOU seems to be usefulness. Btc doesn't have intrinsic value, it has value because people think it's properties are useful. Same with xmr. No reason ecash cannot be the same.
The weakest part if me saying ecash are altcoins is this: if the mint turns off its servers, poof no more ecash. I don't think this means it is not a coin, though. Stable coins all seem to have this property. Do you think tether is an IOU?
Are all stablecoins custodial?
Even if they are, I think that talking about ecash with an altcoin model is more honest than telling people it's custodial bitcoin.
Who will take ecash from a mint that has no Bitcoin to back it?
It would be interesting to think about what an ecash token that overtly fractionally reserved would trade at. Or, for that matter, an ecash token that was interoperable with lightning but used something else in it's treasury. Shares of community owned land? Shares of a company?
I'm in agreement with you that ecash is not bitcoin. But this does not mean it's a useless idea.
reply
Do you think tether is an IOU?
Yeah, it's literally an IOU for dollars.
Even if they are, I think that talking about ecash with an altcoin model is more honest than telling people it's custodial bitcoin.
As I said, I think it's disingenuous to pretend that ecash is not custodial, as the asset people care about is Bitcoin, not the IOU on top of it. No one would accept ecash that wasn't fully redeemable for Bitcoin as then it's literally a worthless credential. That is far different than altcoins which have their own incentive structures and are far more resilient than ecash.
I'm in agreement with you that ecash is not bitcoin. But this does not mean it's a useless idea.
I don't necessarily think it's a useless idea, but that it's useless to pursue for Bitcoin payments because of the broken incentives etc. that I mentioned. All previous ecash attempts have failed because they undermine the state and are trivial to shut down, and the latest take on ecash is no different (except that it's backed by an asset that is under intense scrutiny from the US gov). The reason I push so hard against it is because it's inevitable that this either ends in users rugged and trust broken, killing ecash as an idea, or gov rugs and trust broken, killing ecash as an idea.
To me it's a concept that is technically fascinating and I want to love, but one that clearly has no future in the world we live in today. Once we overthrow our oppressors and have more just laws it's another story, and community banking via ecash would probably be a good tool in that potential future.
reply
There is a distinction to be made between the resilience of a system that is just starting out and one that has been around for a while. Be it tether, monero or bitcoin, all were trivial to shut down in their infancy. They are much less so now. It's an interesting thought how trivial it would be for a gov to shut down tether. Certainly worlds easier than btc and xmr, but also probably not trivial.
I'm still quite confused why anyone would trade sats for ecash if what they wanted in the end was the same sats. Why make such a trade in the first place?
For me, I expect to get something for such a trade, and I expect to pay a price. Perhaps the ability to do certain kinds of transactions I can't currently do with btc.
Some folks say ecash's only benefit is privacy. I see more than that: LN still has difficulty delivering on a internet of micropayments. Ecash solves some of these problems (offline receive, need to run a LN node). For example, websites like SN might be able to navigate the trade offs between usability and regulation if they use ecash instead of custody.
We both agree that in the beautiful future all these things might work or at least we will be able to reason about them more clearly. In the unpleasant regulatory mess we currently inhabit, especially in the US, I still wonder if ecash as an altcoin has more usefulness than ecash as custodial bitcoin.
reply