Ecash for Bitcoin shouldn't be compared to altcoins, the comparison is not productive in my view. On an abstract level, ecash is a method to replace old, transparent ledger-based systems in custodial scenarios with a blinded signature scheme. Sure it hurts shitcoins because every Bitcoin innovation hurts shitcoins but it's not a replacement for them.

Think of these use cases where you'd probably prefer ecash:

- You top up your balance for your VPN provider with Bitcoin and pay per MB used.

- You pay per minute that you watch on Netflix.

- You have a phone plan subscription.

- You have a balance on an exchange.

- You earn mining rewards in a pool.

- You want to pay a nostr relay for each message you send.

- Voting up posts on stacker news without them knowing what you do.

- You want to sell general access to API endpoints without identifying your users.

- You have a custodial wallet like Wallet of Satoshi.

Let's be real for a second: Not even Lightning itself (which I'm extremely fond of), let alone blockchain based tokens, are ideal for some of these cases because it is not 100% reliable, fees are too high for micro transactions, running a node sucks for UX, and it's not private enough.

So here is my take: In cases where a shitcoin was used *only because* it offers better privacy than Bitcoin, ecash could maybe replace it in some places, sure. In trustless cases, it won't. There are just too many different dimensions for a productive comparison because ecash and blockchain-based cryptos are just too different. It's better to think of it as a complementary tool in our toolchain, or one additional way of expressing Bitcoin usage in the real world.

Whatever it is, I'm certain of one thing: You won't find as many motivated people in shitcoin land as in Bitcoin who are eager to build ecosystems around it so we can upgrade the entire financial stack of the world.