Since when are funds held with a custodian “self-custody”?
I guess we need a new word for “custody” now that it has absolutely lost all meaning.
Discussion
Blockstrem's Marketing Dept working overtime
Cmon, this is not black and white.
If a custodian holds your funds, it’s not “self-custody”. That’s pretty black and white lol
Do you self custody your cash? Because the Federal reserve issues it, you don't have custody of the funds? Sure seems like it to me. If someone can accept it what is your definition of custody?
You could say that you’re self-custodying “Liquid Bitcoin”, but this isn’t self-custodying “Bitcoin”.
Correct. That post doesn't say self-custody bitcoin. It is talking about L-BTC.
Read it again.
Yes, I did. Did you? Especially the part about trust trade offs.
“The users’ coins are self-custodied” does not say anything about how you aren’t self-custodying *bitcoin* but rather an IOU for bitcoin.
Yeah, we know how sidechains work. I feel like this is needlessly pedantic. This like saying "The bank doesn't tell you the cash they give you, isn't actually gold!" (Prior to 1971)
The distinction between L-BTC and BTC is clear.
People often say it's pedantic when one interprets words to have their actual meanings.
Well, I'm not not using it in that way. I mean it in the way that "L-BTC" and "BTC" are entirely different words and don't need the redundant clarification by saying "Well actually, L-BTC is a coupon for BTC." That type of pedantry, is TRULY needless. Even if it's true, it's implied by the DIFFERENT FUCKING WORDS. Thanks for your input though.
It’s not, but the copy is misleading users
I like the definition from the recent podcast from nostr:nprofile1qqstnem9g6aqv3tw6vqaneftcj06frns56lj9q470gdww228vysz8hqpzdmhxue69uhkzmr8duh82arcduhx7mn9qy2hwumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqgdwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkcam28zl (forgetting the author he was reading). Is there a unilateral exit to the base chain? If yes then self custodial, otherwise not.
I would say it is custodial Bitcoin but self custody of LBTC. Federated tokens and ecash where you actually hold and control the keys but the token is to be redeemed for trusted BTC makes for an odd categorization, imo.
In other words, I think it’s self custody of a credit token. Much like a banknote. Hard to decide if that makes it clearer or more complicated. But it definitely isn’t self custody BTC, you must have full power to withdraw without any other parties for that to be the case. Definitely doesn’t meet that requirement.
I would also say the article isn’t trying to “pull one over” on the reader either. The very next sentence makes the trusted relationship clear. I wouldn’t have used the same wording of the first part, but it doesn’t seem to be disingenuous at all, imo
This paragraph maybe, but self-custody is used several other times in the same article.
Where was this found? Hopefully this is just careless marketing wording that can be fixed. I’m sure (or I hope) they understand their own design.
Crypto peeps have for several years successfully confused regulators with these designations. Blockstream figuring this strategy out as well.
Still though, there is a lot of gray area between full custody and full non-custody.
custodia/non-custodial is too simplistic for all the scenarios, call things as they are, in this case a mutisig custody or simply a federation.
Maybe some phrase like 'unilateral coin control'. But that seems even less marketable than self-custody