This is one potential use for ecash, once it is developed a bit more.
There's no surprise markets don't want to use the most open, visible, and tracked digital currency (BTC). Monero is THE privacy currency. It's drawback is being slightly harder to use, but not substantially so.
If lightning were used, governments would be going after LSPs and wallets even more than they are now.
Lightning can do literally everything that monero can - but is cheaper and faster.
reply
Three questions:
  1. Is lightning as private as monero?
  2. Does monero require inbound or outbound liquidity?
  3. What is easier: self-custody of monero or being self-custodial on lightning?
Would also be interested in @DarthCoin's answers.
reply
  1. It depends. Could be more, could be less. At least in LN tx are only recorded as forwards in the forwarding peers, and the initiator and receiver of the transaction as payments. Blockchain is for eternity.
  2. No, L1 blockchains only require an unfunded address to receive payments.
  3. Equivalent, both require running a full node software. Bitcoin is negligibly more expensive to run given its older, larger chain.
reply
I am tired of these useless debates comparing a shitcoin with Bitcoin. You want to do shitcoining? GFY
reply
reply
27 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 15 Jun
Go full YOLO
reply
go fuck yourself
reply
Do you have a guide for that?
reply
This guide is only for monero shills... Are you a monero shill?
reply
Let’s discuss protocols, not coin flavors. Yea, monero is a shitcoin — however: if your life depended on the privacy of a monero payment vs the privacy of a lightning payment, which are you picking?
Should Bitcoin development be trying to make coins more fungible (ala MW)? Should it be introducing graph obfuscation features like decoy ring sig txs and zkproofs?
These are things that shitcoins can experiment with no risk to BTC. When should BTC adopt privacy preserving protocols?
reply
If is a shitcoin, there's NO DEBATE, no further discussions. Are meaningless. Case closed.
reply
Protocols not coins. Should Bitcoin implement privacy protocols?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @joda 15 Jun
Ecash is VERY private...
It's just custodial with unproven reserves.
reply
It is, but that last part is a pretty major caveat...
It's also not censorship resistant en masse. If a mints database is corrupted, is forced to shut down, or just flat refuses to exchange tokens your ecash is immediately useless
My God is the only real God and i will obey and never question anything.
reply
Lol. A few sats for staying on message Darth. You are consistent AF.
reply
Consistency is all that matter. Otherwise is just bargaining with yourself and you will never reach the goal.
reply
That makes a lot of sense sats to me. While I do not agree with everything you say, I do acknowledge that you are a man of principle and conviction. Which I do respect.
reply
he is a religious moron, some people say.
reply
Lighting is shitcoining with extra steps.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @joda 16 Jun
Custodial lightning could be viewed that way. But self-custodial lightning IS Bitcoin.
reply
  1. Lightning receiver privacy is bad and amount privacy is not guaranteed from larger nodes. Sender privacy is strong. Lightning is theoretically nice though because it has no public blockchain. Too bad those privacy benefits are discarded with the way vast majority use it (Look at how we are zapping on StackerNews)
  2. No
  3. Self-custody on Monero and it's not even close
Lightning can do literally everything that monero can
Unfortunately it cannot (at the present time at least). It is something I've been arguing that needs to be addressed so Bitcoin can achieve all properties of money.
reply
With AML sanctions coming after it, lightning wallets shutting down or implementing KYC, I don't think so. I think lightning CAN be quite private, but it's more difficult than Monero.
I am really not at all an apologist for Monero, but to deny that the market has spoken is patently absurd. It's literally the point of this poll.
Shitcoins are just R&D for Bitcoin. We're getting BitVM now, which wouldn't have happened if Ethereum didn't exist.
reply
No it can't. It has a huge UX problem to use without custodians and/or permission, with bad receiver privacy and lackluster amount privacy from larger nodes. And if you fix UX problem with custodians or LSPs (moot point though) you lose the few privacy benefits you had with it.
But yea Lightning is cheaper and faster.
ok another moneroboy... that doesn't know shit how to use LN.
reply
141 sats \ 3 replies \ @joda 15 Jun
Not at all, just saying it makes sense. Self-custodial lightning is harder than monero. At least, in the past it has been. It's pretty close now with Mutiny and Zeus.
But the market is dictated by the players, and for now at least, they want monero.
My guess is markets will skip right past lightning and use ecash.
reply
My guess is markets will skip right past lightning and use ecash.
nonsense. ecash depends on LN. Otherwise is just a scam.
reply
Not really. There is no technical reason why ecash mints can only accept lightning. They can accept on-chain Bitcoin or even other crypto. It's just an IOU vending machine. Deposit, confirm deposit, spit out tokens.
reply
Of course, but I mean they will give buyers their own ecash wallets and the market will run a mint.
It's just conjecture, but I don't see them just using standard lightning. Then every wallet operator is on the hook for laundering or facilitating illicit activity.
reply