With custodial "bitcoin banks" or exchange-issued synthetics like e-cash tokens, you are fully trusting the custodian/issuer and have counterparty risk that they could go insolvent, get hacked, or pull an exit scam.
There seems to be more trust assumptions and points of failure. What am I missing here? #AskNostr
Nothing. You seem to fully understand the risks.
There's no single solution for everyone. Some people will use Bitcoin banks. Even though they fully understand the risks and all. So what? If it works for them, It's none of my business why they've chosen to use, well, whatever they want to use.
I see people unquestionably recommending e-cash as if there are no concerns with the L2 and pushing it to other unsuspecting plebs who might not know the difference or associated risks. Some people here are even acting as if e-cash is on par in significance as Bitcoin itself.
> Some people here are even acting as if e-cash is on par in significance as Bitcoin itself.
You must be new here 😉.
There's always going to be people exploiting other people. Nothing you say or do will ever change that. If you keep stressing over it, you'll just get ulcers and, still, nothing will change.
Some people will use custodial wallets. And some people will lose money using custodial wallets.
Some people lose money using non-custodial wallets and are still searching a rubbish tip looking for their hard drive.
If you want to follow every post about e-cash and post a disclaimer about the risks of custodial wallets, knock yourself out. It won't change anything.
