Finally, Ten31 acknowledges that ecash mints are dependent on the mercy of governments.

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzq3e0gs8jnmued6f2rp4c6vs07xqvs4vs8zpwt82smcdch4txjvq7qyvhwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnndehhyapwwdhkx6tpdshsz8rhwden5te0wfjkccte9e3xjarrda5kuurpwf4jucm0d5hsqgxk5gyzv9laxfkl69u2n422h3q3hqyeyrwzuc7dk5jfp858a276vucznucs

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Especially since e-cash is not even Bitcoin tech; it's just a protocol to issue tokens. There is nothing that stipulates these have to be backed, let alone backed by Bitcoin.

It's just separate tech. Which happens to be affiliate with Bitcoin due to personnel overlap and two implementations (of many) chosing Bitcoin as unit of account

you can exchange them atomically for bitcoin, which makes them cool

1) only applies to two implementations Cashu and Fedimint ecash. Not to GnuTaler, BitCredit and any other ecash projects

2) that swap is 💯 permissioned by the mint operator. It's not protocol inherent

pretty sure there's a way to do the swap atomically, but maybe I'm misunderstanding

You cannot swap without interacting with the mint that issued ecash. Look at the one of the implementations and API used.

If you want to spend your e-cash you make an API call against the mint.

There's tons of ways to censor that (IP address black/whitelisting, require login+auth token etc)

Yeah but it makes no sense for a mint to censor transactions, as it cannot tell which token is which, as long as you don't use the same address as when you minted the token, or use Tor.

It's not permissionless.

Mints can even censor users: https://uncensoredtech.substack.com/p/how-to-censor-individual-users-in

No more permissionless than Nostr.

So stop using mints that do this

I don't need any mints. Bitcoin and Lightning works fine for me.

Yeah that's the thing; there's not a single merchant assorting e-cash. All the e-cash wallet users do is pay via Lightning anyway (or rather: instruct the mint operator to pay via ln for them)

You assume the case where they'd want to single out a certain user.

It's much more likely they would (have to) apply much more broad/global action - such as enforcing authentication for *all user*. Or suspending Lightning swaps for non authenticated users.

These mints are custodians, and this CASPs (crypto asset service providers)/money transmitters etc under virtually any jurisdiction - who are under these rules required to KYC.

So it's just logical that Marty's asking the state for permission to let them operate. Because by the letter of the law, these mints would not be allowed to operate the way they do now.

You can also exchange monero for bitcoin without involving any custodian.

1) how?

2) I wouldn't hold more money in Monero than I'm willing to lose, either.

Atomic swaps

You must have missed the podcasts.

Links?

No idea what this is. Followed!

you can go to our site Pull That Up Jamie https://www.pullthatupjamie.ai/?searchMode=podcast-search to find RHR clips. We have not yet indexed Citadel Dispatch but we have RHR, TFTC and several other big bitcoin podcasts. You should quickly be able to find mentions of e cash etc.

I can add Citadel Dispatch. Let us know others that are worthwhile. We do incur cost when we index new ones so we appreciate support by paying through Bitcoin Connect, zaps, or our square checkout subscription (unlimited usage for only $9.99/month).

Example query:

SN write up: https://stacker.news/items/852635

By the way this is CASCDR founder Jim Carucci (uncleJim21). Pretty sure we follow each other on my personal account. Feel free to DM for further discussion/feedback.

Indeed we do. Thanks!

They're not if you operate them purely over Tor

How much money are you willing to keep with anonymous mints? I won't keep even 1000 sats.

These custodial solutions do not scale bitcoin.

never stop being constructive. your insights are needed 🫂