Oddbean

So I hear I am an ecash hater? To be clear, I love ecash, it has great applications, such as paid API calls like in Wasabi. The worlds soft currencies will be ecash, built on Bitcoin stack. There is however an issue when 90% bitcoiners think ecash is noncustodial, pegged, see it as a "scaling" solution. * There are no proof of reserve proposals that make sense, mints can always brr. * Ecash is not a scaling solution, it's a custodial solution. * You are giving someone your bitcoin, and they are giving you a thing they claim is bitcoin. * Mint operators should be aware of the legal risks.

What we really need is a trustless peg that works only with Bitcoin script. But this will require a soft-fork. Ecash is custodial and important to understand that some custodian arrangements are better than others. Federations distribute the trust, which is better than a single custodian, but not nearly as good as decentralization with self-custody.

Yep, although unless I'm sure a load of resources are being used to keep the federation honest, like with Liquid, I trust federations less than single ttps, look at all the federations that get sybiled.

The pocket money of a million users is still worth rug-pulling for bad actors and they will. If you use it "only for low value zaps" then omg how I hate those! If it's not a meaningful amount, then don't do it. If it's meaningful, then don't lose it lightly.

Last point is particularly overlooked and is in fact the Achilles heel of ecash: if the mint becomes big enough, eventually regulators will find out. If the mint keeps its small size, then ecash is simple a little cryptographic game that creates a barter-like environment between lightnin nodes. I love ecash as a privacy solution, don't get me wrong

Game theory doesn't work for me either, the murky mints rug pull incentive is too large, like using a darknet market knowing they'll exit scam at some point. Mints you could trust will be hit hard by regulators, prob on issuing money, which is a biggie.

I think those are great arguments to give me hope for Uncle Jim model preveiling. If I manage the BTC of my family and maybe a few friends, regulators will not care to go after me but they will go after WoS and other custodian of millions of users.

Yes, but how much really do you use real transactions within your family? If the environment isvtrusted, just have a go with a credit-debit system based on relationships. If I've a debit with my uncle of 50 bucks, I'll pay it back the next dinner by paying also for him. You don't need real asset istant settlement in a relatioship-based credit system. IF trust is not an option, then there is no point in using ecash, because you cannot trust that the mint will enforce the "21mln limit". Sure, privacy is still a matter, but really is it significant to assume that Uncle Jim custody schemes will need to use strong privacy techniques? And is community custosy in the form of " uncle Jim custody" significant in the context of the broader bitcoin ecosystem?

I'm still learning about eCash but this aligns with what I know about the various implementations. I have also heard this from some of the people working on it. The honest ones. The issue in many things and also bitcoin is that people are lazy and mostly repeat second hand info and often incorrectly. These people will may pay a price for their mistakes. nostr:note1ctlyscyhlde2fyyph2a8k57relagsm57qyt5v2uux8ew08cfc8ns8jnzzv

Know Your Custodian. My hope is that people opt for fist-reach custody. An Uncle Jim model rather than a Wallet of Satoshi model. But reality looks more like WoS. Even my LN address is WoS thanks to nostr zaps being easy that way :(