Ecash - Bullish or Bearish? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

1566 sats \ 55 comments \ @030a29f333 31 May bitcoin

Quickly feeling like every other post on nostr and SN is about ecash, and the discussion always seems to have a wide variety of opinions.

I thought I'd ask how you feel about ecash as of today, as simply bullish or bearish. There's obviously a lot of variety either way, just wanted to get a sample of the crowd!

Bullish65.3%

Bearish34.7%

72 votes \ poll ended

view all related items

317 sats \ 3 replies \ @parrot 31 May

ecash is gay and dumb

31 sats \ 2 replies \ @MarsIronPI 31 May

When you say that without backing it up, you contribute nothing and sound ignorant.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @parrot 31 May

no u

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @DiedOnTitan 1 Jun

nym checks out.

433 sats \ 23 replies \ @fiatbad 31 May

Were people acting this way toward Schnorr Signatures before Taproot was released?

I think ecash is misleading because it sounds like a new "token" or cryptocurrency of some kind. People are associating it as such, and misunderstanding the role of ecash.

This is a failure on the part of Fedimint devs. They carelessly throw around the "ecash" term like shitcoin scammers (even though I know that's not their intent). They are devs, not marketing experts, and I think they fucked up the marketing for Fedi overall.

Ecash makes Mints work. But the Ecash part of it should be abstracted away as much as possible. It shouldn't be advertised. Mints should display everything in Sats. The ecash recovery phrases should be marketed as a way to "backup your BITCOIN in the mint" and shouldn't refer to ecash whatsoever. (Even though, technically they are backing up their ecash, users should not know this). The user experience should be entirely Sats-based. Market the backup as "a new way to backup Bitcoin" if you must, but for fuck's sake don't mention ecash in the UI.

Mints are a way to onboard people to Bitcoin, and ecash is a huge part of that. But the ecash portion should be treated like all the other technical layers of the Bitcoin ecosystem... it's just another L2. But the word "ecash" makes it sound like something outside of Bitcoin altogether. We need to remedy this marketing mishap.

405 sats \ 2 replies \ @machuPikacchu 31 May

Market the backup as "a new way to backup Bitcoin" if you must, but for fuck's sake don't mention ecash in the UI.

Given there's no unilateral exit and the ecash is strictly an IOU redeemable for bitcoin I think it's fair to not label it as sats.

In the future when several popular mints rug their users newcomers will think bitcoin is unsafe to use because their wallets are drained. Having an explicit distinction can be useful to mitigate that perception risk.

Maybe a better term would be "bitcash" so it's clear it's not a digital dollar or euro or peso but it's also not the true, trust-minimized bitcoin.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @fiatbad 31 May

I dunno... I guess I'm thinking further out in the future.

There have been so many rug-pulls from banks and financial institutions in the past, yet no one was blaming the money. They blamed the banks.

The dollars in a bank are just numbers in a computer. They are literally just database entries. Yet, they are displayed in our banking apps as "real" dollars. I'm suggesting we do the same with mints.

Ecash is a database of sorts. Similar to my banking example above. It's just the database. And it should be treated as such, not as a new crypto.... we should drop the "ecash" term entirely.

When people get rugged by a Mint, it's not ecash's fault.... it's not the database's fault.

All apps abstract technical details from users and display what the users want to see. This is what makes a good app. Ecash is a technical detail that should be abstracted away.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @030a29f333 OP 31 May

This is kinda where I'm at

37 sats \ 3 replies \ @TheWildHustle 31 May

I think ecash is misleading because it sounds like a new "token" or cryptocurrency of some kind.

TheWildHustle remembers when plebs thought sats on lightning was a shitcoin.

And when the crypto bros would say stuff like "Bitcoin is too expensive, where do I buy Satoshi Bitcoins, and will it outperform Bitcoin this cycle"......

63 sats \ 2 replies \ @nichro 1 Jun

Was this a real thing? lol

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @TheWildHustle 1 Jun

Absolutely

I joined twitter to find the freaks, hopped into a spaces and asked a prominent bitcoiner “What do you think about lightning?” He responded “It’s a shitcoin.” I then thought to myself “Man, I guess it’s back to the drawing board.”

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @030a29f333 OP 1 Jun

That's crazy, wasnt aware of this

60 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 31 May

But the word "ecash" makes it sound like something outside of Bitcoin altogether. We need to remedy this marketing mishap.

Agreed.

215 sats \ 12 replies \ @Scoresby 31 May

It's not bitcoin. If I download an ecash wallet and you send me some tokens to pay for lunch, ive never received any bitcoin. I haven't got a LN channel or a utxo. Best I can do is ask someone to trade me btc in exchange for my tokens. This sounds like a new token to me.

Mints are a way to onboard people to Bitcoin,

Yes, but will inevitably be used for other things as well. If ecash/mint systems catch on, people may choose to fractional reserve the mints, they may choose to reserve with assets other than btc, they may sell ecash tokens for USD or who knows what.

Wouldn't it be better if there was less association with bitcoin rather than more? By calling as bitcoin this thing that is very clearly not bitcoin, we are setting ourselves up for even more confusion in the future.

47 sats \ 11 replies \ @fiatbad 31 May

Let's apply this line of reasoning to any other centralized apps people use today.

With a fiat banking app, when you send dollars to someone using Zelle to pay for lunch, they never received anything other than a database update statement.

If you send Bitcoin on Strike or CashApp to another user on the same app, they never receive any actual Bitcoin... they simply get a database update statement representing an IOU for Bitcoin in the future.

This is exactly how a Mint works as well... only, the database is ecash instead of SQL. But why does it matter which DB implementation was chosen? The social implications are the same.

The average person knows that the money in our fiat banks are just numbers in a database. But they don't know HOW those databases work or how the bank's financial plumbing works. They don't need to. This is the same for a Mint. We don't need to know that ecash is being used to move things around. It's enough to know that we are trusting a Mint, just like we trust a bank, and we could be rugged. That is enough for 99% of users. Don't confuse the users with the inner workings of it... don't confuse them with terms like "ecash" at all.

"they may sell ecash tokens for USD or who knows what"

Okay, then they exchange their ecash for Sats from the Mint, and then exchange those Sats for USD or whatever else. And they do this exchange in an automated way, behind the scenes where the user never realizes they made such an exchange!!!!

I feel like you're arguing that people should be able to trade their SQL database entries in CashApp with each other instead of the IOU Bitcoin the entries represent.

Ecash is just the DB layer. Stop treating it like a tradable token.

Sure, we could trade SQL rows instead of the assets within those rows.... but holy shit, we're just being stupid at that point. Ecash should never be used like this. Let's just nip this crap in the bud now.

If we start treating ecash as anything other than a simple DB layer, we're going to start having problems. It will start to get very shitcoin-like very fast.

17 sats \ 5 replies \ @MarsIronPI 31 May

Although @machuPikacchu is right that people might start blaming Bitcoin if they get rugged by mints and all they know is that they had “Bitcoin”. People who get rugged by banks may not know how the bank’s database works, but they know that they don’t actually have cash in hand. I think we need that same distinction for ecash: it’s like putting gold in a bank and receiving notes in exchange.

17 sats \ 4 replies \ @fiatbad 31 May

People only blame Bitcoin now because of how new and under-utilized it is (relative to fiat). They don't understand it.

In a world with thousands of local mints, with LN nodes connecting the mints, and millions of merchants taking Sats for payment.... Bitcoin won't be blamed anymore. It will be very clear that the Mint's guardians rugged you, and not the money itself.

I think we should develop for that future world, and not for today's world. Thus, we should treat ecash simply as the DB layer for Mints, and nothing more. In fact, let's drop the ecash term and start saying "Mint Specific Decentralized Database System." Or MSDDS.

Here's my new marketing suggestion for the Fedimint team:

"Ecash doesn't exist. Fedimint implemented MSDDS as a way to decentralize the internal databases of these Federated Mints which themselves are a new L2 strategy for the Bitcoin Ecosystem."

There, that's what devs need to start saying. Fixed this ecash debate right here, right now.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @MarsIronPI 31 May

No. If you build based on a future that doesn’t exist yet, you won’t have tools that work to get you to that future in the first place.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby 31 May

I can sympathetic to this line of reasoning, but I don't understand how it takes into account the "bearer" nature of ecash. Thoughts?

17 sats \ 1 reply \ @fiatbad 31 May

Let's use gold as an example. We all know the story of how banks started issuing paper notes that could be redeemed for gold at the bank. This way, the paper becomes a bearer asset as well.

This is the same scenario you're suggesting with Bitcoin and ecash, where Bitcoin is akin to gold and ecash akin to the paper notes.

However, what if instead of issuing paper, the banks could hammer the gold thin enough to become paper-like? Do a google search for "Gold Backs". I don't think they had the technology to create these Gold Backs way back in the day, which is why they went with paper notes.

Mint software can be written in such a way that we get the bearer-asset properties of ecash, without exposing ecash at all. Similar to how we could use Gold Backs instead of paper notes. (it's a rough metaphor, but work with me).

The code can be written so that the ecash piece is treated as a DB layer only. We don't have to acknowledge the bearer asset part of it. I mean, we acknowledge it by calling it an "internal, decentralized database". Internal to the Mint. We already have Bitcoin as a universal, global, external decentralized DB.

If new ecash is created and destroyed every time Bitcoin leaves or enters the Mint, then there is a 1-to-1 relationship between Sats and ecash. So why not just display the Sat value at all times to the users of the Mint? Why does the ecash layer need to be exposed? It's just the DB layer. But it's up to us to keep it that way and prevent people from trying to turn it into another form of shitcoin.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 31 May

As far as your banknote example, I think it is apt. I agree that ecash tokens will probably function like such notes, with a market developing to help people determine the real value of tokens issued by various mints.

The Goldback analogy seems to require changes to the various ecash protocols that currently exist, and that's way beyond my paygrade, but if you have ideas about it I hope you are able to implement them.

reply on another page

20 sats \ 4 replies \ @Scoresby 31 May

Doesn't an ecash token differ from a DB entry in that the mint cannot stop me from trading it to another user?

I can't trade my zelle points (dollars in my bank account) without the bank's permission.

I can give you my ecash tokens and the only thing the mint can do to stop it is shut down the whole mint and stop doing business.

This is an important difference. And it us the thing that makes an ecash token more like an altcoin than a DB entry.

On the second point, if I directly trade ecash tokens for USD, there is no exchange function to the mint. WIth a LN gateway connected to the mint. If I sell them some ecash to get them to pay a LN invoice on my behalf, the mint has no insight on that transaction unless they are the runs running the gateway as well. I don't think there is any reason a mint won't have two or more LN gateways that you might use, run by different entities than the mint.

17 sats \ 3 replies \ @fiatbad 31 May

Yes, absolutely.

Everything I've said here should be taken as design suggestions for the Fedi team and other Federated Mint devs.

Technically, Bitcoin is just a fancy, decentralized database as well. People give the DB entries value because we recognize its use-case for money.

I'm suggesting that we don't allow ourselves to give ecash any value, based on principle. The same way we don't value shitcoins, even though they technically are similar to Bitcoin. It's the social layer that I'm appealing to here.

I'm asking the users and the devs of Mints to view ecash simply as the DB layer. To give it special value based on its decentralized properties, the way we do with Bitcoin, is akin to shitcoining.

It is very fuzzy and complicated, which is why I'm having this conversation today with people here. I'm trying to organize my own thoughts and see if others can poke holes in my arguments so I can refine them or change them.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby 31 May

Yes, absolutely.

Sorry, I'm a bit confused. Can you elaborate? I'm particularly interested in your thoughts regarding the point that ecash is a bearer asset, while a DB entry is not.

I'm suggesting that we don't allow ourselves to give ecash any value, based on principle.

I think I have been taking the extreme opposite view as what you say here. I'm trying to say that in the future ecash tokens may have value on their own, like shitcoins, but good ones.

34 sats \ 1 reply \ @fiatbad 31 May

See my latest response to you above. We're starting to have the same conversation in 2 different places, lol. It's a good conversation, though!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 31 May

Sorry about that! Agreed!

reply on another page

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @030a29f333 OP 31 May

@TonyGiorgio @calle thoughts?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @030a29f333 OP 31 May

Interesting take, I feel like Ive heard a lot of the opposite from devs. Not sure which is the right approach tbh.

40 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 31 May

bullish or bearish is a bullshit wall street term. It doesn't apply to bitcoin world and is really stupid to use it.

Just by using this term with ecash, you are considering ecash like any other "coin", when in fact it is not.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @030a29f333 OP 31 May

I thought about what pair of words to use for like 10 minutes lol. Maybe yay or nay would be better. I meant bullish or bearish on the impact it could have for Bitcoin.

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 31 May

Bullish or bearish is a word that can be used outside of Wall Street.

Like the word Mecca. You don’t have to talk about Islam or Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦

121 sats \ 0 replies \ @SevenOfNine 31 May

Just more grifters trying to insert themselves between buyers and sellers for a quick profit. And when that profit runs dry, an eventual rug pull.

769 sats \ 10 replies \ @justin_shocknet 31 May

ECash is a server authentication scheme, not a currency

It doesn't make bitcoin more private

It doesn't make custodians more trustworthy

The new payment specs associated with it are an attack on Bitcoin, specifically the network effect of bolt11

It's astroturf for the new EDollar

It's a well-funded psyop pushed by spooks, scammers, and their useful idiots

159 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 31 May

It's astroturf for the new EDollar

🎯🎯🎯

0 sats \ 8 replies \ @MarsIronPI 31 May

ECash is a server authentication scheme, not a currency

I see what you’re saying, bank notes in the old days were also “just an authentication scheme”. Were old-time trustworthy banks bad?

302 sats \ 6 replies \ @justin_shocknet 31 May

Were old-time trustworthy banks bad?

Yes. That's how central banking came to be

May as well use gold if we want to go back to that nonsense

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 31 May

Avoiding what happened to gold is a big enough goal

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @MarsIronPI 31 May

Early merchant banks were not centralized. That's the kind of bank I'm talking about.

300 sats \ 3 replies \ @justin_shocknet 31 May

So you are unable to extrapolate?

It's the existence of bank notes that lead to central banking

ECash is a digital bank note

To call them mints or coinage is too generous, a real mint stamps verifiable metals...

ECash is by nature unverifiable, just like the paper that preceded it

It benefits nobody but the banker

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @MarsIronPI 31 May

We can avoid the pitfalls of the evolution of old banking by knowing about them and choosing to avoid them. If users demand good, local banks then ecash can be useful.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 31 May

We can avoid the pitfalls of the evolution of old banking by knowing about them and choosing to avoid them

It's called Bitcoin

If users demand good, local banks then ecash can be useful.

"seriously you guys its different this time" herp derp

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @MarsIronPI 31 May

It can be different if people want it to be different. I grant that getting people to want the right thing can be hard…

reply on another page

18 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 31 May

Yes. All banks committed fraud, that is if you believe you were depositing into the bank.

The problem with banks is that they are NOT deposits, but loans. You loan your money to the bank (that's why you get a although tiny interest rate).

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @KLT 31 May

I've been using ecash via enuts, Fedimint, and mutiny Wallet day to day for the last 2 months or so to purchase everyday items. I don't keep a lot of money on these wallets and it's been a great experience for me.

Literally load up the wallet and get the things I need. Rinse and repeat. I understand the conversation on both sides, but all I can do is put the tools to actual use and see if there's a benefit to me personally and ecash has been very useful.

15 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby 31 May

I read Seth's concerns yesterday and I am a fan of his work but I believe in a robust market of scaling options where users can decide which trade offs are palatable and which aren't.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @030a29f333 OP 1 Jun

Agreed, more options are better!

5 sats \ 1 reply \ @HardRich 31 May

I’m not sure I understand the hostility. It’s not like eCash is going away. Complaining about it seems like pissing in the wind.

We can’t stop banks or exchanges from custodying bitcoin for people. At least fedimints spread out the rugpull problem.

Folks that ask how to avoid fractional reserve with bitcoin seem to missing the fact that banks and exchanges can already do that. At least with fediments people have more options (and I understand there are some solutions being worked on to avoid fractional reserve in mints).

Best folks can do is remind people to self-custody on-chain when possible.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @030a29f333 OP 31 May

Good points. If anyone criticizing ecash development has a nonzero balance of fiat, custodial LN sats, or funds on an exchange, then lol. Not saying they all do, but likely some.

10 sats \ 4 replies \ @_vnprc 31 May

Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come.

Victor Hugo

Don't pay attention to all the cope. There happen to be a lot of noisy bitcoiner cultists who can't accept a different custody model. Same energy as the bitcoin haters who haven't put in the work to understand the thing they hate.

1 sat \ 3 replies \ @nerd2ninja 31 May

Explain how we avoid what happened to gold then.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @_vnprc 31 May

it's a 1 step process:

withdraw to self custody

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @nerd2ninja 31 May

Yeah lol okay so that kinda invalidates the comment I'm replying to.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @_vnprc 31 May

I think you are deeply confused on some level.

25 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture 31 May

I’m bullish on Bitcoin and lightning

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @MarsIronPI 31 May

It took me a moment to actually be able to answer, since “bullish” and “bearish” aren’t adjectives that I commonly come across.