It's not primarily a concern, but increased transparency benefits stackers and improves security. If someone were to exploit a bug and mint CCs, public data would enable greater community oversight and faster detection.


We “minted” custodial sats from noncustodial ones. We could’ve “minted” more than we received. We could’ve fractionally reserved them.

The ONLY difference is CCs cannot be withdrawn. I can’t tell why that’d make us more likely to misbehave but that’s okay. I just found it “weird” that this is suddenly a concern.

k00b

This is a vastly different situation. Unlike CCs, the sats SN held in custody were transferable at any time and not minted by the SN. Furthermore, the SN has the unilateral ability to mint CCs without any oversight. I'm not suggesting SN intend to do this, but it's a key difference.

0xbitcoiner

Sat Standard Report 001

I don't disagree. But it's kind of weird request to hear when no one asked how many sats we had in custody before the change.