This.
There is no central place to “lobby” or push for any change; this is a feature not a bug.
Freshly ground beans and the simplest old-school espresso 😍
Bitcoin is opt-in 🧡
It’s one of my favourite qualities; no-one forces you to buy, earn or use bitcoin - there is no enforcement by gun-wielding goons - only the offer of qualities that some people find attractive, or necessary
Your own money
Can’t be debased
Transact when you want
Anywhere across the globe
With whomever you choose
In whatever amounts you have
Perfect savings for the future 😃
Not my bag of feral cats .. but out of curiosity, are you also aware of which side of the aisle was doing the drafting?
Idea + 💪 cohesive team —> 🔥🔥🔥
Assuming we're still talking about Cashu ecash, then there's a single mint operator (both a strength and a weakness) so multiple users could each run a mint, or use multiple mints, but I'm unclear what you're meaning by "holding a proportion of the mint's deposits" .. which is pretty much what a mint user does (assuming the mint is 'honest')
This is the ENTIRE internet in 1973
Crazies thought this would connect the world one day; not so crazy now right?.. and sometimes things take longer than we expect, but viral ideas cannot be put back in a box once out in the wild
Also bizarre looking at this going:
- DEC PDP-10's - yeah worked on them
- DEC PDP-11's - yeah worked on them
- Burroughs B6700's - yeah worked on them
- IBM 360's - yeah worked on them
Hmmm .. must be time to do something different!
Oh wait!..
1. politician-promise-to-delivery ratio trending to zero
2. maybe Ross Ulbricht can walk free again under an open sky
.. oh man 🙏
3. .. but see #1
in my comments above I am attributing ownership of the mint to the individual running the mint; would seem unlikely that people are going to run mints and not have ecash minted by them (but I guess it's possible)
Clearly a mint can have vast numbers of users holding eCash on it .. I wouldn't ascribe ownership to them (depositors?) but am curious how you see that group as having a claim on ownership?
That question is broader and encompasses nurturing the flames that gave rise to the birth of Bitcoin in the first place - awareness of the issue is the first part, and teaching and educating about those key aspects follows closely behind
Apathy is the greatest risk to Bitcoin
That question is broader and encompasses nurturing the flames that gave rise to the birth of Bitcoin in the first place - awareness of the issue is the first part, and teaching and educating about those key aspects follows closely behind
Apathy is the greatest risk to Bitcoin
That question is broader and encompasses nurturing the flames that gave rise to the birth of Bitcoin in the first place - awareness of the issue is the first part, and teaching and educating about those key aspects follows closely behind
Apathy is the greatest risk to Bitcoin
.. and meanwhile in the UK ..
Re-introduction of mandatory conscription for 18yo's proposed
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-26/rishi-sunak-announces-uk-national-service/103894632
Source of funds is probably the attack vector Alex - if it’s just mine then “I do what i want” - but if others pile in then that becomes the attack vector .. which of course OSS the whole benefit of having a gasquillion mints
I mean, imagine if my mint was used for keeping money then used to fund something abhorrent like .. political donations 😳
Same. Largely a waste of precious time there - no value in attempting discourse, possible value in continuing to provide Bitcoin signal for new twitter peeps .. but algo’s appear to be choking reach so 🤷♂️
On that perspective, outside the US, i view the risk of local regulatory/jurisdictional targeting as the larger risk .. which through a shared security model, Fedi currently helps mitigate
The US though is its own special basket case at the moment and a jurisdiction that Bitcoin companies in the other 96% of the world are best to exclude .. hopefully that changes 🤞
A valid critique and why a “firewall” between donors (any) and developers/projects is so important for both groups
HRF, Brink and OpenSats all provide this mechanism and a deeply knowledgeable group of committed Bitcoiners to assess relative grant application merits
An utterly thankless task but so important to reduce the risk of development capture 🤝
Interesting!
I’ve liked the model of Fedimints being community-based from the beginning - the trust tradeoff is counter balanced with the social proof of the custodians
That therefore implies that if the use of a particular Fedi steps outside that community group then there’s a potential undermining of that balance
Then Cashu came along and their public open development and speed of operation has been very impressive and interesting to watch and to experiment with; that aspect of openness in development has been a big differentiator between the two
A 🤯 moment for me was when Calle was able to implement MPP from multiple mints to execute a single ⚡️tx .. this opened a route to mitigate the single-mint trust risk (fast rug) by spreading funds across multiple mints
Both projects openly acknowledge the slow-rug risk (nefarious debasement)
Initially i thought that risk is higher in a single operator mint than in a fedi .. but fedi have done fantastic work in making it easy to launch mints (reducing technical expertise barrier) but ironically that means most likely only one of the custodians needs to be technically savvy and the other (visible and socially trusted) custodians are not necessarily
On balance, the reality is that these two approaches may not be that far apart on actual risk in the real world
Which leads us back to social trust and networks of trust which are highly relevant to both projects and to many other nostr-focused ones too. If emerging mechanisms flourish, then they’ll have a role in seeing either implementation flourish in believe
What is the key reason/reasons why you think cashu is (currently?) only for experimental use? Better stability/maturity of Fedi given age and progress of project?