Could cahsu nuts be used for zaps on sn? \ stacker news ~meta

pull down to refresh

Could cahsu nuts be used for zaps on sn?

409 sats \ 7 comments \ @stack_harder 19 Aug meta

I have no idea if this could be a thing, or if it's technically possible, but could zapping ecash to each other also be an option?

i dont use it at all, but would like to have a fun excuse to.

Was listening to a pod with Calle and made me wonder.

my apologies if this is 100% impossible, i have no idea what is possible and what is not in the world of wizard btc technology

view all related items

749 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 19 Aug

It's not impossible. However, unless the sender and receiver are using the same mint, a lightning payment would still be involved and zaps would be like they are on now more or less. We plan to add a builtin ecash wallet option for sending/receiving, but again, it's not a panacea.

The main advantages of ecash (I'm no expert but this what I've gathered):

you don't need an account at the mints you use, the notes (that you must store else lose money) represent what you're owed by the mint
- because there are no accounts, the mint does not know where money is coming and going
if you're the sender, you don't need to be online to give someone else notes to your mint
if you're the receiver, you can receive offline if the sender is online and binds the notes to a pubkey under the receiver's control, effectively creating a kind of account (afaik)

The marketing of ecash, for better or worse, makes it sound like this is a significant improvement over other kinds of custodial wallets and magically does everything anyone using bitcoin would ever want to do ever and is better than best thing that has ever been best. It is better, relative to other custodians, in terms of:

privacy
programatic interop between custodians/mints (not unique to ecash but it the spec and its complications lend itself to a mono-implementation which is like a schelling point for interop)

But, in general and otherwise, ecash is either the same or worse when compared to other custodians.

So yes, we can. But no: if you're frustrated by lightning, us or anyone else doing anything with ecash won't change that anytime soon (in some distant future, given (2), if ecash support swells, you can imagine UX improving a lot though).

224 sats \ 5 replies \ @justin_shocknet 19 Aug

Calle is a scammer that hypes up circle jerking signatures to himself as innovation. His feed is an endless stream of larp bullshit. A pinko retard of the highest order.

ECash is not additive to Lightning in any way, it's just a lazy (fragile) authentication layer to a trusted server. Total gimmick.

157 sats \ 0 replies \ @nolem 19 Aug

Justin and Darths honesty is beyond brutal 😂😂😂

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @SwapMarket 19 Aug

this

17 sats \ 2 replies \ @BlokchainB 19 Aug

hahahahaha man you pull no punches!

I remember a dev at TABCONF gave an answer on why he didn’t consider using cashu for his prediction market application. He said something about the cryptography proofs not being done and no one taking up that work yet.

That always stuck with me. If Cashu was so great why hasn’t square or some major player implement it yet?

165 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 19 Aug

It's got zero use cases, the privacy claims are nonsense because they're self-referencing (no Bitcoin actually transferred, completely ignores the extra-protocol metadata for swaps)

As authentication it introduces all the hazards of self-custody with none of the benefits

Offline TX is a hoax, tantamount to sharing a password on a piece of paper

Any affinity with Lightning can only be made by someone extremely naive or extremely disingenuous

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlokchainB 19 Aug

Spoken like a true engineer