Do we need ecash, mints and all the other custodial services if we now have Bolt12?
The main added value with ecash was increased privacy; Bolt12 seems to do the same, so what's the point?
#asknostr
Discussion
Ecash scale much better than LN, and for normies it can be much easier to use and implement. But I still prefer much more bolt12 for my use. On the principles side ecash I see it as a shitcoin, LN + bolt12 is still bitcoin. Am I wrong?
I tend to agree.
Ecash transactions can be done out of band/offline without a htlc taking up channel liquidity during the transaction. Only when the transaction is checked-in (I don't know the technical name of this step) does it require online-ness.
Lightning transactions are good but can't be as high throughput as ecash.
So, basically, as long as you hold/receive/send the tokens without converting them to sats, you don't affect channel liquidity and this can be done when the recipient is not online; however, this comes with centralization and counterparty risk. For me, this is a hefty tradeoff. Besides, as I recall, the main advertized utility of these token was privacy, now it has moved away from this.
Also, coming back to having an ability to receive sats when offline, I recall Supertestnet proposed #hedgehog protocol that could be a solution to this problem while not requiring centralized mints and counterparty risk.