ECASH IS AS NON-CUSTODIAL AS A SIDE-CHAIN
Discussion
True
As long as we have our blocks monitored every 10 minutes. Everything below that is non-custodial.
We don't "have our blocks monitored"; we do that shit ourselves.
Hahaha yes! That's what I meant, friend! #proofofwork 💪🏻
If I understand you correctly... this is just terribly wrong.
Yes the Bitcoin blockchain provides security, but you lose that entirely when you trust someone else by taking an IOU issued by a single point of failure/rugging.
So it is really only providing that security for the issuer. So you MUST TRUST the issuer.
I think #cashu will be an excellent alternative for communities. We should certainly trust the mint bearer. But it's a very acceptable compromise between strict custody and alternatives for when generating lightning channels becomes expensive in the future, as well as offline payment transfers. Not everything is black and white. The beauty of #bitcoin is that it can be widely used to meet the needs of every user. Cheers friend!
Agree. It can work in communities. As any scrip could.
And in some families there will even be rug pulls.
What it is NOT, is Bitcoin.
It is an IOU.
Be careful who you TRUST. Here too. In fact, Trust me least of all.
Because they’re both custodial
This is only true if you think in black and white. Liquid for example (this is who you mean, right?) is a federated model and therefore a security model with trust distributed across multiple signers. It inherits much of the security and trust model of the base chain.
Cashu, however is a single point of custody. Not only that, but the issuer can melt (or claw back) the value of issued tokens at any time. They can also just close their lightning channels and mint and steal all the value. So, though it gains fantastic privacy, this implimentation completely tosses out censorship resistance, and requires complete trust in the mint.
Doing this in Liquid would be difficult and would require collusion amongst several signers.
I strive NOT to think is black and white paradigms. So I CAN see value in both of these "bitcoin bank" (see an early post on the BCT forms from Hal Finney on this topic) implementations, and am all in favor of their development.
But the claim made above is entirely false and possibly dishonest.
I think it's a black and white issue. Do you control your Bitcoin or not (you don't).
Nevertheless, fedimint is federated.
Why are you saying I don't control my Bitcoin, please?
Ah, I think I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with you very strongly. It is not a black and white issue.
I currently trust the base chain of Bitcoin for almost the entirety of my holdings, which is more than I have in any other single asset.
I would trust the liquid network somewhat more than something like PayPal because the federated model protects me against rug pulls and I would store an amount of money on liquid similar to what I am comfortable with on PayPal or CashApp.
And I would trust Cashu as much I would trust putting my money in someone elses pocket and spending an IOU that they promise to pay upon receipt.
There is a huge difference in those three security models, in my opinion.
As to Fedament, I remember seeing you kind of brag that they were an abandoned project not too long ago. I would be willing to use a federated e-cash system way before single issuers. That's for sure.
I don't get the dogma around non-custodial options—they simply suit specific needs perfectly.