jb55 on Nostr: nostr:note1p7axj0cnxzy56za4wx0f2fy6ghu0qfwq4sd4tx0fwnlql39ugkrswy32ll

quoting note1p7a…32ll

While lightning retains much of the Bitcoin base layer's tradeoffs and security, Ecash changes much of them and quite profoundly.

Here is just one example. E-cash transactions are not finalized until the token is redeemed. So you can send someone E-cash, but until they redeem it, you still have control. Because of this unclaimed tokens can be clawed back by the issuer.

So transaction finality has been seriously changed under this scheme.

This could be very useful for example in a store that wants to issue promotional value (like coupons or scrip) but not be responsible for the value of unspent ecash. Or, a family member could gift someone bitcoin using this method and then if that person loses or doesn't ever redeem their bitcoin, the family member can claw back their value rather than just having lost it.

But this also means that the mint has more control and is a centralized system that must be trusted. particularly in the case of cashu in which mints are single issuers and must be trusted explicitly.

I am quite concerned that the Bitcoin community in general is treating this like some Bitcoin analog. Almost as if it is a one-for-one scaling method, and it is not.

We need to carefully consider the trade-offs and see what advantages they give senders, receivers and issuers, and then what disadvantages also are implied by these changes.

I am personally avoiding using it for anything significant whatsoever until the effects and downstream and attack surface of these trade-offs has been more deeply probed and defined.

Good luck.