Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
Ben Arc | 7 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 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.
▲ ▼
LeoWandersleb | 7 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 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.
▲ ▼
tolot | 7 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 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?