Ecash mints are useful for their privacy properties and the fact that they don't require a consensus change. They will still need to use geographical arbitrage or network privacy techniques such as tor to remain operational in the face of state sponsored attacks. This is still an easier path than achieving consensus on a soft fork. My ecash bullishness remains unperturbed.
One of the frustrating aspects of discussing these options is the constant attempts to play different solutions off of each other. We don't need to focus on a single solution. We can try all solutions at once. Please stop implying that all scaling solutions are rival. They are nonrival.
don't require a consensus change
This is why I'm bullish. eCash is actually happening right now.
Let's hurry up and build (or rule out) every non-consensus solution. Then, after building them all, let's also consider changing consensus.
We can try all solutions at once
Agree its possible. But there are tremendous advantages to having focus. Time is scarce and so are the number of people with skills, resources and desire to build.
Builders are free to try a dozen things that are centralized and learn one-by-one (the hard and long way) why Bitcoin has to remove central issuers and custodians to continue to operate outside state control.
reply
As an individual having focus on one thing is great but having everyone in a group focused on the same thing can be detrimental. Too many cooks in the kitchen.
Besides, even if we wanted to get everyone focused on the same thing it's almost impossible to do practically. Ironically, this desire would lead to centralization, the very thing we set out to avoid.
People's desire to build comes from their different views and beliefs about the best way forward. Like it or not it's going to happen that way regardless. That's healthy in a free market of ideas.
reply