Oh, I get it. And I'm not conflating the two. It's just a personally held belief that the beauty in the system is that we don't need custodians.

Once we introduce the need for custodians and fractional reserve shitcoinery, there's no putting that genie back in the bottle. It's a similar problem to socialism. Socialism always goes bad and the new school always says, "oh, those guys got it wrong but this time, we're smarter and we know which mistakes not to make."

It's just the way systems evolve, especially when introducing the foundation for it. Once we begin down that road and game-theory it out, we end up with something that looks just like the system we're leaving.

The other possibility could be a globally federated mint to allow interoperability between nation states. That might actually be desirable down the road and Ecash is technically bearer asset. Again, the most interesting thing about it is the offline payments, for me anyway.

I still don't understand that mechanism of how it guarantees redeemability into #bitcoin and how we maintain accountability.

But that it's still in the nation-state's interest to not have that interoperability and to maintain a captive audience... It's how we got to where we are now.

I could be way wrong, and I know I'm beating a dead horse. Just feels like the wrong step. Thanks for humoring me.