"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.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

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

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.

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