Avatar
techfeudalist
98a386c766ac9250f4ce1b500662fd08e4d464a1915743eedc83bd50521decac
Blessed by tech; working to bring the benefits to everyone. Freedom, incorruptible money, privacy.
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.

Yes, it has privacy benefits but many view it as a potential scaling solution for bitcoin. Let’s face it. Most people will never be able to afford to have their own UTXO and self custodial Lightning will be similarly out of reach for plebs and day-to-day transactions. We’re moving quickly into a world where only whales, institutions, and custodians will interact with the base chain. Unfortunately, this means that most people will use a custodian.

If that’s true, then the best custodian will be either someone you personally know (uncle Jim) or a geographically distributed group of custodians hopefully out of reach of any one country. For instance, maybe a federation based in or including friendly countries like El Salvador, etc. Ecash seems useful to me in those scenarios.

👏 nostr:note1h945du7h92y6jxa6w78658zxm6ts87m706y499fkcfew6wj6t72sg4u0j4

A glimpse at one of our potential futures. A global digital ID and permissioned transactions.

https://www.theblock.co/post/297409/mastercard-launches-p2p-crypto-network-vanity-address-system

His perspective on some of the core developers being dangerous makes sense to me.

I was shocked to listen to Livera’s podcast with Rusty:

nostr:note12najfx7g8x2s6zzcn6qvc6dtaxuyjlhq7kfkt5vyphzxmrc7wk4qxgxqh8

Trump knew exactly what to say to us libertarians.

But hard to get too excited because I’ve learned over and over again never to put any hope on a politician.

He’s probably worried about developers like this:

nostr:note12najfx7g8x2s6zzcn6qvc6dtaxuyjlhq7kfkt5vyphzxmrc7wk4qxgxqh8

I listened to the entire podcast. Rusty is the poster child for ossification. Let me explain…

1. This Isn’t A “Restoration”

For starters, this is not a “restoration” of some long lost functionality blessed by Satoshi that was mistakenly disabled.

At 5:20, Rusty admits that he has no idea why Satoshi disabled some of those codes, but Rusty assumes Satoshi thought they were potentially dangerous.

Was Satoshi worried about the opcodes being dangerous to the operation of the core software? Or to the interlocking social incentives underpinning the entire system?

Rusty doesn’t know and doesn’t even consider factors beyond the memory usage or CPU cycles of the core software itself.

Why the myopic perspective? We find out later in the podcast.

2. Rusty’s Design Philosophy Is Dangerous

At 49:00, Rusty says that he expects this more powerful scripting language will be used in unanticipated ways.

This engineering mentality is suitable for a startup where the stakes are low.

Do you think engineers of nuclear power stations would add a powerful API that could be used in unanticipated ways?

Of course not.

When stakes are high, responsible engineers only enable limited functionality KNOWN to be safe. They don’t add powerful capabilities to “see how people will use them”. They move slowly and cautiously. They err on the side of conservatism.

3. “But First, Do No Harm”

To your credit, you asked Rusty about the possibility that these new powerful capabilities might be abused.

We then learn why Rusty doesn’t consider anything beyond the memory consumption and CPU cycles of the software.

His terrifying answer? He. Just. Doesn’t. Care.

At 51:00, Rusty admits that it will enable people to do more evil things. Not a problem, he thinks, because there are already lots of ways to abuse the system. What’s the problem with adding more?

Rusty doesn’t seem to respect what bitcoin is. He doesn’t seem to appreciate that bitcoin core protects the life savings of millions of people and is our hope for the future.

He doesn’t even fully consider the first order effects, never mind the second or third.

Rusty is dangerous. Clearly skilled, but lacking wisdom to apply those skills appropriately. Paving the road to hell with his good intentions.

He should be nowhere near bitcoin core until he truly understands the significance of what he’s playing with.

Replying to Avatar Stephan Livera

nostr:npub179e9tp4yqtqx4myp35283fz64gxuzmr6n3yxnktux5pnd5t03eps0elz4s of nostr:npub1jg552aulj07skd6e7y2hu0vl5g8nl5jvfw8jhn6jpjk0vjd0waksvl6n8n rejoins me on the show to talk about a new idea for a bitcoin soft fork that hopefully avoids some of the ‘horse trading’ dynamic that existed amongst other proposals. Listen in to learn more about the different paradigm that Rusty introduces here, so that developers can build more functionality and efficiency in, hopefully so that more people can use Bitcoin in self-custody.

Bitcoin Script background

GSR overview

GSR benefits

What is varops

Contrast with APO or LNHANCE?

Will it enable shitcoins and spam?

https://stephanlivera.com/episode/577/

Are you a developer excited about a crazy powerful technology that you think should be added to the protocol? Stop! Just stop.

I’m sure you’re super smart and your new thing could do so much. But wait. A powerful new technology could be used in unknown ways. This means you have no idea how your change might be abused in the future.

Something that you’re pretty sure is probably not harmful is not appropriate for a protocol that safeguards the world’s money now and for centuries to come. Changes to the protocol must be safe. You don’t get to gamble with our money.

🙌🎉🥳☠️⚰️ nostr:note1p4kzkn4pfl4zt43ultgr7hqrcs99j5t5ehdx5f3nzk6zge766w7qptwfa3

Who knows if these numbers are accurate, but it’s interesting that China and the USA are running so close. Bitcoin is for enemies and I would expect to see them start to monitor and make sure they’re not losing the accumulation battle. nostr:note1pv6anekkw3e2lyulkcpd2jss73r4r9s95qsxaujk9d324kdvulhqrsv8f4

I think we’re moving to a world of geo-federated ecash (and cold storage). Lightning to mostly be used between the federations and exchanges.

I’m hopeful that large federations that are geo-distributed will be difficult for any country to shut down.

I suspect that AI is moving us to a world with no “jobs” but with limitless opportunities to build businesses.

Why would I hire someone if AI (and later robots) will do the job for almost nothing?

But on the other hand, entrepreneurs will have incredible resources available to them without huge capital requirements.

It will never be a worse time to be an employee and never be a better time to be an entrepreneur.

Seems like something bitcoiners will eventually bring back.

https://youtu.be/AYDuOKI8maQ?si=JBwwleqnH3j0LPtI

Will never happen (at least not until the 💣💥) but maybe Massie can pick up Ron Paul’s 👑. nostr:note1p0pkkfts7p0gu2mgajw5p9dzx0at85ldzj50rqt02mhvycw9zpgq8kxhc8