Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
Colby | 4 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +3 
 Most people never accepted that trusted third parties are security holes?

That’s what we’re here for… to remove the risk of that for them in an automated way. Why abandon course for a shortcut? ⛵️

Shitcoiners compromise on their values for shortcut solutions with horrible trade-offs.
▲ ▼
jb55 | 4 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +3 
 It really depends on who you mean by "That's what *we're* here for". You, me, and self custody maxis are probably a very small group of people. I don't know of any other person who uses their own lightning node for zapping other than myself and a small set of very technical people.

If we're talking about sending and receiving small amounts of nostr, I think a large portion of the population would be ok with custodians for those.

We're not talking about storing your life savings on nostr or custodial lightning nodes. onchain is always there when you want to do that.
▲ ▼
jb55 | 4 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +2 
 I think the confusion is trying to compare different use cases, I don't think there is any scenario where anyone should recommend storing their onchain bitcoin with a custodian.

It's not so obvious in the "small amount you goof around with on nostr" case.
▲ ▼
Colby | 4 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +2 
 I suppose having multiple options is fine so you can choose the level of trust-minimization you desire, but calling it sats instead or ecash feels wrong/posing — like bcash vibes.
▲ ▼
jb55 | 4 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +4 
 funny thing is “bitcoin cash” would be a decent name for it 😆. zap cash? Lightning IOUs?
▲ ▼
Colby | 4 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 Ecash Zaps is plenty clear and sounds quite cool.