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.
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.
reply
Regarding WoS keys, they'd also be subject to analysis attacks similar to the ones you describe.
Regarding mints, WoS keys are always linked to a balance. Mint tokens require a lot of work to associate, if it's possible at all.
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