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.
Why are you saying I don't control my Bitcoin, please?
I prefer mostly to ignore people who call themselves "influencers".
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.
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.
That's basically nostr:nprofile1qqszd44fgen4ucpl3hjt7muuaazzqdahp3lwu9c07phdweelcdxf3ugpz4mhxue69uhkyetkduhxummnw3erztnrdakszxnhwden5te0wfjkccte9enk2arpd338jtnrdakj7a33qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvhj9400 with a couple uzis, a less fantastic clothing deal than the red dress, and a lot of hair gel.
Not the smart ones.
You seem to have left out the 0.0031% retarded moose.
#tendrilis #alphabet
Were I Dr. Strange I would say I see a great number of possible universes that have that exact story line.
There are others too.
Scott Bessent sure has a fascinating past.
Be very careful who you trust. Heroes can be bought.
I just don't look at it. One in a blue moon...
Sample size way too small still, but it sure looks like it for now.
Sorry you're going through it.
And you likely know... But there is serious PHI in that pic.
God bless friend.
Now he just needs shuffle off his crusty-ass motal coil. The sooner the better.
I'm sure whomever replaces him will likely be even worse.