Subnostr

Hey smart people #asknostr esp those who’ve read “the book of satoshi”

When hal finney and satoshi were discussing “bitcoin banks” they was essentially describing lightning, were they not?

Is there nothing to be said for a pressure towards integrity for a potentially custodial system of this nature since it’s an open network?

I think there is… i *think*

Brisket 1y ago

Lightning service providers are the new banks.

You either connect your node to them (no trusted third party) or you trust a third party LSP.

This trusted LSP could be a single entity mint or an app like WoS. It could also be a federation like liquid or Fedi.

Lightning is the main payment protocol & method of settlement between LSPs. An LN invoice will be paid.

What happens between the normie & the LSP is what's being worked out right now. Multiple approaches to the same problem, with different risks & tradeoffs.

Nobody should be forced to accept a token that they don't want.

Seller provides a lightning invoice, lightning invoice is paid & the transaction is complete.

The user can decide who they place their trust in. Rugs will be pulled.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

no₿ody™ 🧱 1y ago

Ok so that’s my impression as well. I just get confused by the mass bear waves from devs on lightning. I just assume something like lightning but better will come around when that happens 😅

I am not particularly bullish ecash personally

Brisket 1y ago

I could be wrong but that's how I view it & see it panning out.

I don't see ecash being particularly useful unless your ecash wallet can pay a lightning invoice. People shouldn't need to trust a token/mint just because you have. I really like Aqua wallet's approach in this regard. Custody & exchanging value while minimising 3rd party risk is what's being solved for in my mind.

One of the benefits of ecash is not needing to be always connected to the internet to exchange value. This has some niche use cases where Internet access is sporadic or unreliable.