pull down to refresh
Rugging has nothing to do with the gateway. Mints can rug. Gateways just choose to act as a gateway or don't. They have no effect on whether I continue to hold the ecash.
You say you are stating facts:
The trust level is the same, the privacy benefits are illusory.
This is your opinion. Demonstrate it with an example or something. Or discuss it further. Just saying it isn't fact.
From your OP
I trust WoS to update a spreadsheet they have that credits those sats to my account
do some fancy math to issue an ecash token
Before I make assumptions about what you are implying here, are you suggesting that Sats to ECash is less trusted than Sats to SQL Record?
No, I'm suggesting it results in different levels of visibility into the transactions that happen within the mint versus those that happen within the SQL database.
within the mint
That's not Bitcoin
Also WoS is just anonymous keys anyway so the benefit is a farce
I'm not arguing that ecash = bitcoin.
I specifically say it is not.
I'm arguing that ecash may be useful.
I don't agree that there is no difference between whatever database WoS runs on the back end and an ecash mint. I am under the impression that movements of ecash within the meant (meaning from one user to another) are not clearly visible to the mint. WoS can see all movements of all balances between users. Is this not the case?
Because you're being intellectually dishonest
Wallet of Satoshi is custodial. Cashu and Fedimint are not custodial.
On the one hand you say ECash isn't Bitcoin, then on the other you change your definition of what is being custodied.
If ECash is non-custodial, then so are JSON Web Tokens
If WoS is custodial (Bitcoin) then so are Shitcoin Mints (promising you Bitcoin)
Get a grip
He posted in the Bitcoin territory and used Wallet of Satoshi as an example
We already determined this should have been posted to ~lol because his point is ridiculous
I think you describe my point fairly. As I've tried to make clear, I'm less interested in whether a person thinks ecash is useful or not, than I am with what ecash actually is and why in bitcoinland we seem to have decided that it was custodial rather than simply an altcoin that is pegged to bitcoin.
You didn't answer my question.
This whole post is about the confusion caused by the very thing you are pointing out.
It matters whether people say the thing is bitcoin or whether it has a claim on a certain amount of bitcoin or whether it is worth a certain amount of bitcoin.
I'm arguing that ecash should say it can be sold for a certain amount of bitcoin not that it has a claim on a certain amount of bitcoin. Users can then decide whether it is worth it to them to sell their bitcoin in exchange for the ecash.
You posted in the Bitcoin territory carrying water for scammers that equate it with Bitcoin
It offers no utility beyond SQL
Your obsession with internal transactions and account balances is only relevant if we're talking large KYC institutions debt notes, if those are your goal posts there's no reasoning with you
No, with ecash the mint doesn't know who you are, nor does it know what specific tokens it issues you. All it knows is that somebody got some 32-sat token.
Allegedly, but can't be proven or taken as fact for all the reasons I already provided you.
It's a trusted server and there's no changing that, it's a scam.
All the ecash projects I've seen do say that you have to trust the mint operators. So I don't think it's a scam since no one is saying to trust a random mint.
They also shill it as being better because X, which it isn't
That's the scam
Yes and it demonstrates you have no idea how any of this works.
The trust level is the same, the privacy benefits are illusory.
No, that's retarded you would even think that. The gateway can execute any logic it wants.