pull down to refresh
186 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b 4h \ on: Cashu vs custodial Lightning bitcoin
Better privacy because no accounts and no accounts means bearer auth and bearer auth means you approximately get the UX complexities of non-custodial onchain bitcoin usage (lose your auth, lose your money). And it’s custodial, so it has the normal risks associated with that (except that they can’t discriminate between users so when they rug or KYC they have to do it to everyone). It also shares one of the nice features of custodial bitcoin services: either the sender or receiver can be offline to conduct a payment. It also shares one of the worst features of custodial bitcoin services: unless the service has millions of dollars of licenses and KYCs its customers, it’s illegal to run a mint that serves any customer located in a majority of the countries (by population) on earth.*
*it’s possible federated mints are in a grey enough area that they might win in court battles though
This pretty much nails it. Here it is as a table in case it's easier to compare
| feature | ecash | custodial lightning |
|---|---|---|
| can be rugged | yes | yes |
| can recover from lost keys | no | yes |
| can get your account closed | no | yes |
| can receive offline | yes | yes |
| is illegal in US/EU | yes | yes |
| privacy from outside observers | yes | yes |
| privacy from mint/custodian | kinda | no |
The only nuance I would add is that since many of ecash wallets support use of multiple mints, it is easier to use multiple custodians at once (you can have a unified balance, while using ecash tokens from multiple different mints).
reply
reply