Ok… what happens when you go viral and those micro payments become a macro balance. You will want custody.
Discussion
If we have a system that works for instant micropayments with trustless settlement why not use it?
also the idea that people all around the world will use your mint specifically to zap you just doesn’t make sense, they will have to swap *with lightning* from their mint to yours to pay you.
How is this not the same problem. I feel like i have this argument every month on here and am taking crazy pills.
Feels like having to settle Venmo to my bank account so I can go pay someone through PayPal. Cringe.
it is the same problem, but people like it when it is wrapped away in a layer of abstraction they choose not to understand
just like how running a query on an SQL DB feels more "performant" than making your own DB and indexing scheme
I don’t get it personally, I just use lightning, it just makes sense…
it being ruggable, IS the feature. by building it this way, people will 'receive' their token instantly with no failures. then the failures are pushed toward the future when they want to settle. then they learn about lightning and fees and if their mint was reputable or not later when it matters more to them.
this is certainly more profitable for the node runners as they sweep the 'lost' balances, and for 'onboarding'.
anyway, thats my steelman thanks for listening 😁
Because it means they can collect zaps and zap, faster, during onboarding. That's what is driving this.
They might hit a settlement wall, later on, but that's a later problem.
Jb👏
the biggest privacy and efficiency benefits of ecash come when you transact fully within the ecash system. you lose privacy and pay fees when you go to another layer, whether it's lightning or on-chain or something else
how does it work in practice?
mints will hold balances of other mint's ecash and settle up with each other at regular intervals via lightning. this is exactly how free banks operated in the 1800s before the state shut them all down
user wallets can do the same thing. when one ecash user wants to pay another their wallets will collaborate in a privacy preserving way to find a common mint they both trust. if no common mint is found, then fall back to lightning and pay the lightning fee
seriously, every bitcoiner should read up on free banking. these are not new problems. they've already been solved. we just need to rebuild those solutions in a new technical medium
Lightning (for the sender) also has pretty good privacy from the external world, but without ecash, your service provider always knows it was you who initiated a payment. Similar for receiving on LN.
Yup. I built it, but it works a bit differently. Mints don’t know or care about other mints. Users have in their wallet ecash from different mints - they decide what to do. If they don’t trust a mint, they just swap from one mint to another, settled via lightning invoices. The mints don’t have a clue what’s going, except their own issuance and redemption.
that's how every cashu wallet works
Yup, and it’s beautiful.
yes, but it doesn't address the problem of having to use lightning all the time
I don’t use Lightning between safebox addresses. It bypasses lightning altogether.
I was playing with safebox and fumbled 200 nuts somewhere, poof they've gone into the nut heaven 🥷at least with cashu me, you can find the token in history and send back to yourself.
Calle has designed cashu me excellently the ux is top tier
sure it sounds great, but is anyone working on that? because as far as I know there is no interface for sending tokens from mint A to mint B and no wallet does that
did you share your vision with the cashu stakeholders? are they working towards it?
Calle retweeted it so....yes?
I don't think I'm the first one to have this idea. It's kind of a natural direction to go. But it's very early for ecash. Lots to build. Not sure where this falls in the priority list.
I don't get the impression that anyone is thinking along these lines, you're the first
Depends entirely on the use case no? Some use cases where it's ridiculous, and some use cases where it makes good sense. If you say it's silly to try and cook a steak in the microwave when it's a sunny day and you have a barbecue out on the deck then yeah, that is silly.