minting = depositing bitcoin and getting an ecash token in return
melting = cashing in a token and withdrawing bitcoin from the mint
Discussion
I wonder if they're something better than minting and melting? If you melt a dime you get a little clump of copper and nickel that certainly isn't worth 10 cents (maybe half?). It's no longer money. And melting just intuitively sounds devaluing. But with Cashu to Lightning it's still Bitcoin, still money, still transacts on tap.
"Withdraw cash" and "deposit cash" seems much cleaner to me. The real bank is the Lightning Network, Cashu mints are just the tellers.
In fact if I could remake the whole metaphor that's how I'd do it. Instead of mints there are tellers, with the footnote that cash you withdraw from a certain teller you can only deposit back to that same teller. Call it the picky teller metaphor.
Ok I see
But what if I don’t trust teller to be there if I want to withdraw?
Hell, I don’t trust myself
Plus if you give me cashu minted at your teller I suddenly need to trust that he will be there. That’s surprisingly complex.
And what if the cashu you gave me you received from yet someone first?
>But what if I don’t trust teller to be there if I want to withdraw?
Word will get around to avoid that teller. That's a rug teller! And this is the whole reason for the debate about rankings, audits, etc.
>Hell, I don’t trust myself
On that note do any of us trust ourselves not to lose some actual cash from our pockets from time to time, to say nothing of Cashu?
>Plus if you give me cashu minted at your teller I suddenly need to trust that he will be there.
Yes! That's how it works! He is the only one you can deposit it back to the bank with. Whether that's fine or not fine is another story, but the picky teller metaphor does at least help illustrate that this is the case.
>And what if the cashu you gave me you received from yet someone first?
Depends how it happens. Person A could have gotten it from one teller (Tommy), then given it to person B, then person B deposited it back to the bank (also Tommy) then had a cigarette, then went to another teller (Janet) and took the same amount of cash out again, then gave it to person C, who would then have to give it back to Janet. Or person A could get it from Tommy, then it bounces around offline through a bunch of people, and whoever wants to cash it at the end in has to go back to Tom. Importantly, the cash will always be in an envelope that says "This is from Tom" or "This is from Janet" so everyone knows.
Thank you
That’s a lot to digest
No worries. Moral of the story is that if you can’t find a teller that you trust and that your friends trust too then probably it's best not to ever withdraw cash and just do money transfers via the bank (Lightning network).
But if it turns out most tellers are nice people and always there for you, and it's easy to avoid those that aren't, then it's probably not a worry, go get that cash, it's very convenient to use
> And what if the cashu you gave me you received from yet someone first?
A Cashu token is a bearer asset, so whoever has a copy of it can spend it (unless it is locked to you). So if someone gives you a token, you should "receive" it to your wallet asap.
When you do this, your wallet will send it to the mint, and the mint will invalidate it and issue you a brand new tokan.
That way, if other people have a copy of the old token, it is already "spent" on creating you a new one.
The metaphor comes from the minting and melting of physical coins.
You deposit bitcoin and the Mint mints you a physical token (coin).
You melt that coin (it no longer physically exists) to get back your bitcoin.
It falls apart because bitcoin on lightning is still a coin, in every relevant sense. It’s not ore.
Curious your thoughts
nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzpwgv8jm36e358cq3qn2unt0hmvzaxejnk9mqrlum9m464qd7v7prqqn8wefddejk2epdw3hj6arpd34j6ctzda6hgttrv9eksafdwfjkwatvv96xjmmwskq8h7
I think you've done a great job mapping out the landscape and dilemma for mint operators. One recent development which may help clarify the regulatory situation in the longer term is the NUT-22 Blind Authentication Token.
This allows a mint operator to restrict use of the mint to authorized people... this allows, for example, a mint to KYC people at the on/off ramps, but keep privacy at the level of in-mint transactions.
This would be much like a bank only issuing and redeeming notes to depositors they know, but not knowing the movement of the cash otherwise.
Nice, that could be a useful basis for cooperation with some of the more reputable regulators out there. I'm thinking of putting together an Intro to Cashu deck for a few of the more promising regulators in Asia to test the response in person, if you know of anyone else doing the same please let me know, happy to coordinate.
🎯💪💪