138 sats \ 2 replies \ @TheBTCManual 28 May \ parent \ on: Why can't you buy ecash from a Cashu mint? bitcoin
I'm not yet sure how that skirts responsibility in the eyes of the regulators, you're still running the full stack in that SN example, so they could still come for you, even if you say well I don't now what they doing with the tokens, i just honour redemptions
Unless SN is just part of a federation with other coordinators maybe, that would work, we don't yet know
people trust custodians because they're regulated businesses and you can take legal action if they rug you not thats fared well for most but its still what people prefer.
Trusting a bunch of anons mints or federation members is a tough sell
What if SN allowed you to sell your cowboy hat to another user for sats? This would be a sales transaction.
Now what if SN offered to buy cowboy hats from users at a 1-to-1 value with sats? Would that be a sale or a redemption?
And if SN sells us all ecash tokens to use on this platform, but then promises to buy them back for 1 sat each when we leave, are they like chucky cheese tokens and casino chips or like a deposit?
My interest is entirely in trying to understand if custody is actually what is happening here or if it is something else.
In the case of ecash, I think it is much more like a sales transaction than a deposit. I'm curious if something similar can apply to SN.
reply
I don't see how that argument stands up, digital goods are sold all the time, ebooks, courses, advertising inventory, streaming services, gaming, in-game currencies are already a thing and I just see them applying that logic
I don't get how masking balances or adding an IOU layer changes the fact that transactions are performed and that sats are held in a multi-sig or LN channel, where someone holds the keys, just sounds like a loophole that has already been closed
reply