>You're giving up your Bitcoin to custodians for an IOU.

Yes, we know this. Check below note:

nostr:note1qj7egpvfxhdq5e857mn36v9g92tcyzz7wurkyww089yy3z2hcczskpwt9n

>The "Ecash is self-custodial" argument is a misdirection.

When someone says "Ecash is self-custodial," they are not denying the statement "You're giving up your Bitcoin to custodians for an IOU." What they mean is that if you lose your ecash, it cannot be recovered. This ecash is the unique proof, and there is no account that can restore it.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

>What they mean is that if you lose your ecash, it cannot be recovered. This ecash is the unique proof, and there is no account that can restore it.

I understand this but how does that change anything/why does that matter? Your Bitcoin isn't under your control anymore whether you traded it for ecash or some other shitcoin token.

Good question. Keychat uses ecash sats as stamps for messages. Users do not lose privacy due to payments, and relay servers no longer need to rely on advertising models to make money.

Onchain sats and LN sats cannot achieve this, making it the most suitable application scenario for ecash sats.

nostr:note1h895va2vdwscyl3r339pdwnvy83kdu0cl646dnal69ws2n2s6p2qx2gaaz

Sounds cool, but your answer has little to do with the original topic: Why is it relevant to bring attention to the fact that the IOU (ecash) is self-custodial when the underlying asset itself (Bitcoin) is held by custodians?

This statement should be more accurate and avoid misunderstanding: ecash is custodial and a bearer asset.

If somebody loses their bitcoin-backed ecash, who owns the bitcoin?

The mint I think.

Ecash is a unique voucher that cannot be retrieved if lost, much like paper money.