30 sats \ 64 replies \ @Scoresby OP 28 May \ parent \ on: Why can't you buy ecash from a Cashu mint? bitcoin
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
reply
reply
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.
reply
Because it's not pegged to Bitcoin
In the context of Bitcoin, it's custodial.
reply
I'd say it's "soft pegged" to Bitcoin. Ideally it wouldn't deviate, but some issuers might be dishonest.
reply
You're just making up words now as you grasp at straws
It's either pegged or it isn't... and it isn't
reply
Fair enough. It's nominally pegged, but yes, you are trusting the mint to actually have something to redeem. The advantage over regular custody like WoS is that the mint doesn't have as much information about you.
reply
It's a promissory note, nothing more.
The advantage over regular custody like WoS
IT IS REGULAR CUSTODY
WoS is that the mint doesn't have as much information about you
Wrong, WoS only knows what you tell them. Same is true of shitmints
ECash's only advantages are to spooks and scammers, not users.
No, I do not think you have demonstrated that just because a token is pegged to another asset, users of that token expect it's issuer to act as custodians for that asset.
I might buy ecash with SATs, then use the ecash to buy a taco from someone willing to accept the ecash. If that person can pay for something else with the ecash, sats need never enter into the equation except as a means of establishing the value of the token.
reply
just because a token is pegged to another asset, users of that token expect it's issuer to act as custodians for that asset
The fiat mind virus got you bad
First, its not pegged
Second, if users didn't value the peg, why would the peg exist in the first place?
No one is going to use ECash for its own sake, they're going to use it as a bank note. Whether that bank holds Bitcoin, Taco's, Dollars, or simply forces adoption by decree (Like will happen with Federal Government ECash), its no more valuable than any other piece of arbitrary data on the internet.
reply
I missed a word in my reply above. It should read:
just because a token is pegged to another asset, doesnt mean users of that token expect it's issuer to act as custodians for that asset
Sorry, I type poorly on a phone.
reply
I inferred it, still total nonense as I stated
if users didn't value the peg, why would the peg exist in the first place
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
reply
I hardly conceded the point. I said suggesting that I post it in ~lol was a good comeback (which it was).
I do think we pretty much exhausted your line of reasoning. You don't believe ecash is any different than an SQL database.
While I agree that you can be rugged by the mint, I don't agree that the mint has the same level of insight into the ecash transactions that happen between users of the mint.
reply
between users of the mint
Which we concluded was an appeal to mintstitutional use and has nothing to do with Bitcoin
reply
No, we concluded that people do not discuss the minimum anonset (number of unique users) necessary for an ecash mint's claims about privacy to be true. And it would be good if they did.
Nor did I say ecash has nothing useful to do with bitcoin. It is not bitcoin but may be useful to bitcoin.
You may have concluded these things but I am not convinced by the arguments you presented.
reply
Nor did I say ecash has nothing useful to do with bitcoin. It is not bitcoin but may be useful to bitcoin.
This is self-contradicting
The latter part is conditional, it's no more related or useful to Bitcoin than SQL is
reply
I'm confused by what you are saying.
Do you think there is anything that is not bitcoin but is useful to it?
But it's related to bitcoin. It's a way to scale bitcoin and make it easier to use between people who trust the same mint. Just like using bank notes instead of gold in the old days when bank notes were actually good.
reply
Not any more than SQL is
Just like using bank notes instead of gold in the old days when bank notes were actually good.
They were never good, how exactly do you think we got central banking? By morons giving up their gold for bank notes.
Same will happen if we normalize mintstitutions over family nodes.
reply
They were never good, how exactly do you think we got central banking? By morons giving up their gold for bank notes.
When banks actually would give you gold back they were good. They were easier to carry and exchange.
reply
That's how the gold supply got captured
Mintstitutions will do the same
reply
No they won't. I wouldn't put much bitcoin even in a trusted mint. I'd just put a part of my SPENDL at most.
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.
reply
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
reply
Well, tony got rid of ecash territory. Where would you have preferred to see this posted?
reply
reply
That's a great reply! I did consider ~mostly_harmless, but like it or not this is a conversation that is happening in Bitcoin and I think the SN users are wise enough to dismiss my post if it is wayward.
reply
Fair enough, will you make a new post that outlines how the ECash convo in Bitcoin is a scam?
reply
No, because I don't think it is a scam. I think ecash is not bitcoin. I think it is a different token you can choose to buy or not. I don't think that means it is a scam. This is exactly what I said in this post.
I was hoping some of the ecash people would jump in and explain the reasoning behind using a "deposit/redeem/custody" model rather than just selling ecash for bitcoin. I don't fully understand that.