Oddbean new post about login | logout eCash isn't looking like the answer to Bitcoin scaling. Back to lightning. Self-custody should be your top priority.
How do you see self-custody play out on lightning? I'm a simple pleb and I'm very far away from doing anything remotely self-custodial with regard to lightning...
Run a ln node. Open channels. Live the best life.
That is easier said than done, I'm afraid. But of course, you're right. But running a node and opening channels is not only difficult, it also runs into the problem of blockspace scarcity... Nor everyone will be self-souvereign this way
Basically owning your own channel routings. There’s a few self-custodial alternatives that dont require running your own ln node. @ZEUS @PhoenixWallet
Self custodial users will be the kings of the future financial system, regularly exercising their sovereignty. That means using their own policies, not anyone else's. That means capturing the long term value of infrastructure. That means leveraging insights for precise management of their operations within the dynamic network. That means managing relationships with other sovereigns. Not everyone will be able to have the freedom of kings with their own UTXOs.
So if freedom is not for everyone, on what basis did you disqualify ecash? I'm not too familiar with ecash, but the anonymity appeals to me...
Only recently learned about Fediverse and eCash. So what’s the “not working out part”?
eCash has zero dependency on DNS. A specific implementation does. Would be super silly to walk away from eCash because one implementation has a known and solvable issue...
My comment isn't about DNS. It's about custody.
Your post isn't in reference to the ongoing fedimint guardian offline DNS issue? The one that kinda broke mutiny wallet? The one that everyone is talking about?
It's an indicator of a bigger problem: the users aren't in control of their own keys to unilaterally exit.
Bitcoin is a fundamentally flawed protocol if your criteria for success is every user having ownership of UTXOs on the base chain.
That's not at all what I'm saying!
How can a user "be in control of their own keys with the ability to unilaterally" transact without owning UTXOs on the base chain?