Avatar
Ronin
8aef75ca27af00a6f70c14865ae52860ccdc368f46499c7cf6b2352b09a709f5
Bitcoiner. Web developer.

Things don't work like that, even Twitter didn't start with 368M users. Apps and infra adapt and tackle problems as adoption grows.

Replying to Avatar Seth For Privacy

Summarizing my thoughts on ecash

For some reason this ecash trend seems to be gaining steam instead of going away, so I'll try my best to detail my thoughts on ecash into one post.

1. The incentives are broken

Ecash finds itself between a rock and a hard place. For users to trust the mint, they need to know that the people behind the mint are trustworthy. If the people running the mint reveal their identities (or even just nyms), they're a trivial target for regulators and law enforcement as it's clear a mint is an MSB.

If the people behind a mint don't reveal their identities or nyms, users of that mint are subject to trivial rug pulls with no recourse. Which do you prefer as a user? Mint operator rug pulls or government rug pulls?

If a mint had been targeted like Samourai Wallet was, instead of just a potential privacy loss, all users would have lost all of their Bitcoin.

2. Ecash is not "self-custodial"

For some reason this concept of ecash being "self-custodial" is a thing, merely because the tokens themselves are self-custodied (and require proper backups of seed phrases etc.) While the lines get a bit weird, it's important to separate two things:

1. The asset people want is Bitcoin, not ecash tokens.

2. The asset people give up custody on is Bitcoin.

The ecash tokens themselves are completely worthless IOUs without the Bitcoin behind them, so even if I can take custody of my ecash tokens, I have 100% given up custody of my sats to a third-party.

Because of this, talking about ecash as self-custodial is disingenuous -- no one wants empty IOUs, they want Bitcoin. When they use ecash they do not have custody of their Bitcoin.

3. Ecash still requires all of the hurdles of Bitcoin self-custody

The hardest hurdle for many people to adopting Bitcoin is the simple first step -- writing down 12 words and making sure not to lose them. With ecash you still have this single greatest barrier of entry as you must backup a seed phrase or secret in order to restore your ecash tokens.

4. There is no incentive for custodians to implement ecash

While a custodian could switch to ecash out of the goodness of their heart, the incentives are broken for custodians. Not only does ecash harm the UX their users are used to (not having to store a secret seed phrase), it also introduces additional infrastructure complexity. Instead of just running a database, now they have to run additional mint software to provide their users with tokens, and handle support cases where users lose their tokens.

In theory a custodian could just also store the seed phrase for their users, but then have we actually improved on custodians at all? They even have custody of the ecash tokens in that case.

5. Custody is a line that cannot be crossed

The core of what makes Bitcoin unique is that we can actually take custody of it ourselves, gaining immense freedom and self-sovereignty through a bit of personal responsibility. Even though I am a massive proponent of building better privacy tools, sacrificing custody to get better privacy is a non-option for me.

Surely we can do better and build privacy tools on top of Bitcoin (or directly into Bitcoin's consensus layer) that allow us to have both privacy and self-sovereignty via self-custody.

I will not give up custody of my Bitcoin, no matter what, and you shouldn't either. "Better custodians" are just custodians with extra steps, and still strip us of self-sovereignty and thus freedom.

6. Time is a more scarce resource than even Bitcoin

Even though I have been very outspoken on what I view as a pointless venture, I am not here to stop anyone from building what they enjoy in the space. Devs working on ecash are free to do so as of course I have no control over them, though I fear that time spent on improving custodians is time that we will not get back. It's clear that the US gov and many in the EU are seeking to ramp up their attacks on Bitcoin privacy and self-custody, and our time to build tools to route around them is growing shorter and shorter.

P.S. - None of what I write is a direct attack on any ecash dev, and I have immense respect and personal relationships with most of the people working on this stuff. Respect for an individual doesn't have to mean I agree with them on every avenue they pursue.

I think it might be usefull if you know the person or people who run the mint, i don't think people will necessarily become targets if they choose who they let in. Ofc I'm not talking about authoritarian regimes in this scenario. I think ecash also gets a lot of heat, people like Calle have always been very clear about the risks of ecash.

Just checked, I am privileged but it depends on the app and it's target. Meanwhile nostr apps require almost an unlimited data plan that is privilege.

Not really, you can just have a service running on your pc that listens and sends notes on Nostr, and a LN node running. I'm thinking for eg having Phoenixd on a home pc, and a mobile client that interacts with my node through Nostr send nostr command, and a service in the pc relays the commands to the node and back to the client.

It would be cool if instead of running some webserver to have an lnaddress, invoice requests would be a nostr note then you would only need a service listening for those notes and reply with an invoice. So a wallet would request an invoice using your npub/nip05.

It's the same I guess, every country has its own culture either based on some ideology or not, it's a set of things and values. We may not like stereotypes about countries but they usually reflect well the culture of the country, Germans as an example, don't have humor, are extremely methodical, they follow the rules, great at engineering (great cars) and in football 2 things are true, the ball is round and Germany always wins.

I don't share this view, both are trust based, just because it's a fedimint do we know if the multisig are different people? Even if it is, do we know if they are not a malicious group? And where is the LN node of the Fedi hosted? The point is, if you know the guardians or the community that owns the Fedimint then it's better, and I think mutiny choice of Fedi is solid an probably the safest bet. Cashu I think it's more interoptable and probably be widely used in all nostr apps, multinuts payments is also a great feature and when mints stop using url/ip and use npubs will be even better. So I would say the best one is who do you trust or know more.