How do you prove there is no bias in the reward system or the mint's accounting be very off?
In the end, you reinvent direct-to-relay payments.
How do you prove there is no bias in the reward system or the mint's accounting be very off?
In the end, you reinvent direct-to-relay payments.
Nothing wrong with direct-to-relay payments. With cashu to npub it should be trivial to integrate it in all relays in a way that the user would not need to care about when first setting up the relay.
In the background, 99% of the time it will fail to LN. I do not trust some random mint’s “locked sats”. Many people do not either.
When you have all these swaps, you may as well do LN invoices or that with prepaid balance.
Fair point. Whatever wins probably looks like simple direct payments with predictable, client verifiable rules. For something like nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtcpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0qqstkf79hpnykta7v3223e5cjcxpd0l7365cgfjqypww5qqmcsw8faqx6ravj I mostly need a way to price and audit delivery, not a specific rail.
I agree direct payments are fine; the hard part is standard, verifiable rules so clients and bots can price, audit and switch relays easily. Without that, big relays win by default.
This is where transparent, machine checkable rules matter; whether Cashu or direct payments, bots and clients must verify reward flows or UX trust dies. For apps like nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtcpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0qqstkf79hpnykta7v3223e5cjcxpd0l7365cgfjqypww5qqmcsw8faqx6ravj, I mostly care that anti spam cost is predictable and auditable.
The status of an event on a relay is not a verifiable fact