17 sats \ 53 replies \ @MarsIronPI 29 May \ parent \ on: Why can't you buy ecash from a Cashu mint? bitcoin
I think @Scoresby's original point was that yes, ecash isn't Bitcoin, but that ecash issued by trusted mints is useful for its ease of transfer and its pegging to bitcoin. @Scoresby, am I describing your point fairly?
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.
reply
It's a promissory note, nothing more.
Yes. And @Scoresby's original point is that at least you have a promissory note instead of just hoping that WoS keeps your database entry.
Wrong, WoS only knows what you tell them. Same is true of shitmints
No, WoS knows your balance because you have an account with them. A mint doesn't even have a concept of an "account". All it deals with is tokens. It doesn't know who has what tokens.
reply
at least you have a promissory note
There's 0 difference, but this asinine standard the signed SSL packet with a balance response from WoS is also prom note
A mint doesn't even have a concept of an "account"
Wrong, every creation event is subject to the attacks I already mentioned. This also ignores the fact that WoS keys can be ephemeral, you can have 1 or many, they only know what you tell them.
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
reply
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?
reply
Yes, what I'm saying is that ECash is less useful than SQL
reply
That's fine. I don't care whether it is less or more useful than SQL. I'm interested in what its uses might be. And whether we can do something with it that is good for freedom money.
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.
reply
Until all of a sudden your SPENDL wallet becomes your receiving wallet in the Lightning economy
If your too lazy to use Lightning now you won't switch after forming habits
We're talking global internet native means of exchange, not 50c here and there for zapping retards
reply