reply on: Chaumian ecash is the patricians choice.... \ stacker news ~bitcoin

475 sats \ 8 replies \ @supertestnet 17 Jan freebie \ on: Chaumian ecash is the patricians choice.... bitcoin

most of us now understand that scaling BTC to entire world on-chain will never happen (mathematically impossible - not to mention fee issues).

It is not mathematically impossible and there are solutions to fee issues

Therefore we need some form of "Custodians" to get 6B people both on the network and transacting

We do not

there is no way to open that many channels on-chain, so custodians of some sort will be needed

It's a huge leap to say "lightning can't do it therefore custodians are the only way forward" -- there are non-custodial solutions in this world other than lightning you know

Custodians can and will be tempted to spy on users and use captured data for their advantage at expense of user. ... eCash solves this

It does not. Shotgun kyc is a very popular model of introducing privacy violations and ecash does not fix it. An ecash mint can wait til it has a lot of users, then pull the rug on them: "No more transfers or withdrawals without kyc. Go to this site to submit your documents and restore access to your money."

its like sending physical cash over chat network

It's like sending a phyical check over chat network

The person who receives it cannot redeem it without going through the chokepoint, the place where KYC can be applied

And if you choose not to immediately redeem it but just resign it and pass it along to the next fool, each subsequent holder is at the mercy of hoping a prior holder doesn't redeem it first

The chokepoint (i.e. the server) is the person who prevents doublespends, they are the person trusted by every user, and that is exactly the problem the bitcoin whitepaper was written to solve

Ecash is the problem. Bitcoin is the solution.

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @jurraca 18 Jan

It's like sending a phyical check over chat network

well put, exactly right.

ecash doesn't have to become a chokepoint though. It may be prohibitively hard to get there, but having internet-native interoperable banks that use bitcoin as a backend will happen. They can either be financially regulated chokepoints, or wildcat banks out there in cyberspace. Mints have to be interoperable (there has to be a mint network) to be useful to their users (be able to redeem cash in many places) and reduce the likelihood of rug.

1 sat \ 3 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 18 Jan

they are the person trusted by every user

You realize ecash can be federated right? It's not a single person.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @supertestnet 18 Jan

Federations do not reduce trust

A federation is a group, and although I want to say groups are generally less trustworthy than individuals, that's not true either. They are equally unreliable unless you get to know them and assess their trustworthiness the old fashioned way.

It is, however, easier to get to know an individual than it is to get to know a group of individuals, therefore I personally prefer unfederated custodians -- because I can more easily get to know them first and determine their trustworthiness

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @TonyGiorgio 18 Jan

Federations do not reduce trust

This is retarded but to each their own I guess. Best of luck to you, nobody is forcing you to do something you don't want.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @supertestnet 18 Jan

Best of luck to you, nobody is forcing you to do something you don't want.

Yes, that is one of my favorite things

This is retarded

Why? Saying it is retarded does not make it so. If I am actually wrong about this I would like to do better