20 sats \ 1 reply \ @om 16h \ parent \ on: Sill bullish on eCash? bitcoin
Ecash is money as a piece of text that you can just copy and paste or transmit with a QR-code or with a private message or however you want. It's a bearer asset: you have the piece of text = you have money. Usually ecash is an IOU but European Union plans to issue euros as ecash as well.
Mint is anything that issues ecash. It's the job of the mint to prevent double spending. When you receive ecash, you need to contact the mint to make sure it wasn't already spent. If it wasn't, you get fresh ecash of the same value. If you want, the old coin is melt and a new coin is minted, hence the name.
Fedimint is the software for running a mint as a group. A group mint running fedimint is also called fedimint because "fedimint-running mint" sounds stupid. Cashu is the software for running a solo mint. Fedi is the app to use fedimints.
Can't agree here. Fedi is very user-friendly. In comparison, XMR mobile wallets need you to sync the chain all the time. With ecash you can push money: "here, scan this, here's 1k sats for you" but with XMR you can only pull ("give me your address so I can send you some piconeros"). Mint transactions are final in seconds, there's no waiting for the next blocks to confirm.
ecash (at least as currently implemented) is an IOU note issued by the mint. Usually it's denominated in sats but both fedi and cashu can in principle support fiat denominations.
Fedimints are connected to LN through a gateway that exchanges between ecash and LN sats. For cashu mints, the mint itself is the gateway.
That's not what I meant. You use ecash but there's a gateway. You go to a vendor and pay with LN through the gateway. The vendor might receive it in ecash through the mint he trusts or can just use LN directly, you don't care.
This works in cashu/fedi already. The gateway doesn't have to know who you are. The part where you give up privacy is the chat: your Fedi client connects to the chat server(s) asking "any dms for nullcount?" when you open your wallet.
I don't get your point.
yet no criminal charges are brought against individuals in those companies.
It isn't a company that's persecuted in this case because Samourai has no company IIUC. Logical enough.
Why wasn't Goldman Sachs' CEO indicted?
This is a good question but it's not about selective prosecution. Goldman Sachs was prosecuted too, meaning the case was brought to the court just like this case. Now whether the court itself is biased is a completely different question.
If Bitcoin lives up to its promise (money you can send to anyone anywhere anytime and no one can stop you) is it inevitable that we all become outlaws?
(O<O)
Yes.
Are you really claiming that Liquid/Shitmints are Trustless?
Not trustless, but m-of-n trusted under assumptions that the wallets work as intended. Fedimint gateways are trustless only under assumption that you trust the federation itself.
You can't prove how many key holders there are, it's a trusted attestation
Indeed I have not independently verified that the 15 functionaries of Liquid are not the same person. For example, maybe the photos on https://liquid.net of the Nym guy are AI-generated and Nym is actually run by Blockstream. However, the m-of-n trust model is by definition broken if more than n-m parties are evil, and such a case does include the possibility that n-m+1 parties are actually one and the same. Users that worry about this possibility should either use fedimints run by their friends or investigate the Liquid federation more thoroughly than I did.
Doing so would defeatthe purpose of the gateway in providing compatible addresses/invoices. There's simply no getting around trusting the a single API server, which is necessarily run by a single party.
This is not how any of this works. Swaps between Liquid/Fedi and LN/L1 are atomic and untrusted basically using the same submarine mechanism that Boltz uses to swap between LN and L1. Not trusting gateways is the whole point of Fedimint.
Shitquid's entire business model is literally a trusted swap service ffs.
There's 11-of-15-trusted and then there's 1-trusted. Very different beasts.
This is bullshit.
Simplified Example (users pwned by a bad wallet): nothing to do with federations, a bad L1 wallet could do the exact same thing. We have to assume that the wallets are open source and work as intended whether it's chain, LN or federations.
More Complex Example (peg-in by a trusted party): regular peg-ins should be signed by multiple federation members, in this example the bad wallet does something else instead and it is the problem of the bad wallet.
Yet More Complex Example (pwn by a trusted gateway): in Fedimint gateways are untrusted and this situation can't occur, if a bad wallet uses a trusted gateway instead that is the problem of the bad wallet. In Liquid there are no gateways distinct from the federation itself.
"Counter": the entirety of that section is based on the assumption that the previous examples hit the target, which they don't.
There is some similarity but I want to explain the major difference here:
- 1 UST is a claim on 1 USD worth of LUNA
- 1 DAI is a claim on $0.50 USDC and $0.50 worth of ETH
- 1 SBTC is a claim on 1 BTC locked by the STX validators but there is also >1 BTC worth of STX lying around that 1 SBTC is not a claim on.
Bottom line is that SBTC is very capital inefficient as >2 BTC of value must be locked to produce 1 SBTC. But it can't depeg in the same way that UST did. (Maybe in some other way.)
Thanks for the explanation. It might be that your KYC source doesn't support L2s now but in the high fee environment that might change very quickly. Binance has added LN at the previous fee peak.
With LNs coinjoins aren't needed and don't even make sense. In Liquid they're possible but given that the amounts are blinded by default there's less need to do it.
I'm not saying that L2s magically fix all the problems,. They don't and they especially can't help you with utxos in L1 cold storage. But some problems that they don't fix, like the KYC source problem, may be better ascribed to lazy exchanges or tyrannical govenrments.
Read some stuff from https://liquid.net and check out the Sideswap wallet (https://sideswap.io).
Bare bones:
L-BTC is a BTC-pegged IOU from the Liquid Federation.
The Liquid chain resembles the Bitcoin mainchain much more closely than Lightning does (since Lightning isn't a chain). You'd need Liquid-specific wallets though.
The perverse incentives exist right now, and "not even nefarious, but just spent on swaying the opinion of others to my benefit" actions are committed all the time by present day corporations. For example, there was a time when Microsoft tried to snuff out the open source movement. What did the goverment do? Nothing of course.
Maybe I just literally give some people units of currency to vote a certain way.
This actually happened with some DAOs. Many people here hate Ethereum but I don't. IMO experimentation that Ethereum does is very valuable, even if it's mostly in informing us what not to do.
The resistance of the anarchist society to vote bribing should and will be built and battle tested in a purely digital environment first, where the government can't prevent us from experimenting. The credibility of anarchy working in meatspace must be demonstrated in cyberspace first. (How are Ethereans doing on the DAO front? Not that well so far IMO but there's hope)