Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
shocknet_justin | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Very, very wrong.

ECash is literally a server authentication mechanism for an API for a custodial Lightning app.

Npubs, JWT's, Hashcash... all permissionless random numbers
▲ ▼
Egge | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 How are they permissionless if access can be revoked at any given time by the issuer?

A mint can not revoke a token
▲ ▼
shocknet_justin | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 A mint can simply not redeem a token, based on any number of heuristics

And if you're worried about your account getting nuked maybe you shouldn't be using that custodian

ECash is nothing a database account isn't, it's not any more permission-less, or private, or asynchronous, it's literally a server authentication scheme. Transferring it offline is effectively writing down your password for someone. 

... claiming it's more than that is being done intentionally by the central influencer agency to astroturf new banknotes being pushed by the government
▲ ▼
Egge | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 Thank you for providing your perspective. 🤙💜
▲ ▼
Egge | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 PS: This wasn’t in my any sense meant passive aggressively. I really do appreciate the exchange 🙌🏻 I simply do not have the time to continue it right now haha
▲ ▼
pailakapo | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 "ECash is nothing a database account isn't, it's not any more 
permission-less, or private, or asynchronous, it's literally a server 
authentication scheme. "

If you have a "database account" at a server, and the server is hacked or seized, you have all the transactions listed between all the users of the service.  A single point of failure.

If you hack or seize the mint, you cannot see anything like what you could with a database of transactions.  

That single point of failure is much more private than a "database account" type SQL logged service.
▲ ▼
shocknet_justin | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 A database account can just as easily be a random set of numbers, that transacts atomically disassociated from other random numbers, logless, encrypted, and so on

There's no difference except that the database is reliable, performant, and doesn't lie to lull users into a false sense of privacy whilest slipstreaming edollars into the bitcoin ecosystem

You are 100% trusting the operator in both scenarios, and you should never trust an ECasher
▲ ▼
pailakapo | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 It seems like your argument here is, you can create a system that is  *just as good* and you shouldn't trust those losers, you should *trust me bro*.

If you build a better mousetrap I may use it.  But I like the Uncle Jim scenario of cashu more than yours so far.
▲ ▼
shocknet_justin | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 No, the argument is if you're going to trust someone, keep that trust local, as in uncle Jim... not big and centralized like an ECash mint so you can be moar private 

If ECash wants to shill itself as a payment spec and as privacy, that's EDollar spook bullshit- not Uncle Jim tech