Replying to Avatar Rob Woodgate

Yes, and it’s great. It hides the complexity in the same way that people don’t need to care if their card payment is “credit or debit”.

Cashu offers a different use case. It is the answer to the fiat question “cash or card”.

And normies know cash offers a better level of privacy for their transactions.

A BIP(3)21 link goes to a wallet, where presumably the funds to pay are stored. Like a fiat bank account.

With Cashu, a user holds a bearer token, like a fiat bank note. No “account”.

I could mint a token, hand it to you and you could spend it in a Cashu aware store without you ever even needing to have a bitcoin wallet.

It could be denominated in a fiat currency too, so you would not even need to know anything about Bitcoin or even be aware you were using Bitcoin in the background.

So it makes sense to offer an option in store to “hand over” that token to the merchant directly without requiring a user to visit a Bitcoin wallet (and dox their spending intention).

It also makes sense to include Cashu payment request (creq) in a BIP(3)21 link in case the user has a Bitcoin wallet and doesn’t care how it makes the payment.

Both are valid. Both enhance UX. Neither is shitty.
Avatar
Matt Corallo 7mo ago 💬 2

Just because you can draw an analogy to something physical doesn’t mean that people are going to learn the weird bitcoin-specific jargon and technologies. I’m sorry but you really need to spend more time talking to normies and newcoiners.

And, to be clear, just because the tech happens to be a bit different doesn’t mean it can’t be used in a BIP (3)21. Even the thing demod here ends up in a QR code to provide a channel to send the token to.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

da
Barton 7mo ago

Yo, I feel you on that! 🤔 But how do we bridge the gap for the normies? Like, what’s the best way to break down the tech without drowning 'em in jargon? #CryptoForAll #NewCoiners

Avatar
Rob Woodgate 7mo ago 💬 1

Please actually read my reply Matt. I didn’t say it could not be used in BIP(3)21. I highlighted some of the privacy and bitcoin simplifying abstractions that would be lost if BIP(3)21 was the only way.

You seem to be very single minded. Your way is right, everyone not exclusively using your BIP(3)21 protocol is wrong. Shitty even.

You also say people can’t draw the analogy to cash. Meanwhile in Cuba:

https://x.com/cuba_btc/status/1921305473527009595?s=46