Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
dk | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +2 
 Thanks, I’m following both of them now, too.

I’ve always had the assumption that a payment for a good/service always has counter-party risk with whoever you’re exchanging with.

So I would never consider eCash self-custodial, but I’ve always thought of it more like a simplified UX involving an additional party for an already somewhat risky transaction.

You could give me 10,000 sats from cold storage and I might still run away with the coffee we had agreed I’d hand over in exchange.
▲ ▼
shocknet_justin | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 This rationale highlights my issues with it

Custody of small amounts (credit) is inevitable in an economic sense, but ECash isn't additive to that at all, while ECashers position them as synonymous despite solving the wrong problems inhibiting broader adoption of Bitcoin as a MoE

It's not more programmable than any other database, it's actually much worse because of the the abstraction from the underlying asset

The privacy benefits are farcical, particularly in the context of small nodes, and treating it as a new payment spec is deleterious to interoperability

If the goal is to have shared friends and family nodes for Bitcoin as a MoE, then Lightning.Pub is superior to mints in every way