Replies (90)
I like it, but I still don’t see it either.
Ecash = zero until it redeemed on lightning…
So why did we cashu in the first place.
exactly ? I’m not going to accept the payment until i redeem it as a lightning payment to my node, since it could be a bullshit token. So it’s just a slower payment method now? Who is benefiting from this? Users get slower payments, seller has to do extra work. Still uses lightning at the end of the day to verify. Please make it make sense.
Not to mention the trust placed in hoping not to get rugged by the mint
The only way I can think of justifying it, is if there is a Huuuge mint, and it issues and redeems for aaaaall users. With minimal need to go back to Lightning.
But then… that’s just a mildly less centralized table. 🤷♂️
I haven’t been able to figure out the good use case for it either. Maybe because of offline payments?? That’s the only argument I can see. But you can’t verify it. I’d rather take cash and convert that to sats.
yeah lightning wouldn’t work in some places where visa works, like in an airplane with no wifi.
so this is where ecash works better, but you could rugpull the airline right when you get back online unless they redeem before you
You can verify the integrity of the token as long as it is locked to your pubkey and of a known mint without actually having to do a web request / talk to the mint.
Exactly. It’s outside my risk tolerance.
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.
If you do payment per request, you dont have to generate invoices. The request will be paid through a header attribute.
Everyone risk tolerance.
Actually you can verify it. By combining DLEQ proofs and locking scripts you can verify a token yourself (no request to the mint needed). You can aggregate payments and then swap out to Lightning whenever you like
You can verify they are real. But you can’t verify that they exist, have not been double spent, or the mint closed while you are holding the verified token.
Ecash sats work better for very small payments. With Phoenix Wallet charging 0.4% plus 4 sats per transfer, sending less than 100 sats isn’t practical.
can you show me code that does this? I find that hard to believe. At the end of the day unless the sats are in my lightning channel i’m calling bs.
Sounds way more complicated than just using lightning.
You can verify that they are real, that the mint that you trust has issued them, and that they are not double spent.
I’ll give you the last one though. If you don’t trust your mint in the slightest, Cashu might not be for you.
But it’s not. With Cashu a payment can be part of a single web request. With Lightning you need plenty (return invoice and identifier, check invoice payment state, return resource after payment).
Usually these have fees because they are providing non-custodial lightning solutions which have onchain fee cost. Comparing this with a custodial option doesn’t really make much sense.
You should compare it with custodial lightning instead, which typically doesn’t have any fees (coinos, wos). The only benefit at that point is privacy for users on the node.
“You should compare it with custodial lightning instead, which typically doesn’t have any fees (coinos, wos). The only benefit at that point is privacy for users on the node.”
Looks like you’ve already answered your own question.
This is a huge deal.
I downloaded cashu the other day both on android and iOS , then I delete it . I can’t remember why , .. oh now I remembered it . Something with Mint token
It’s because ecash or Cashew is not decentralized network , E cash depends on central mint or federation issued the token, while lightning wallet is decentralized so no one control the bitcoin .
Hmm , Lightning send actual Bitcoin over the network , while E cash just send tokens issued by the issuer .
You really need to trust the issuer or else you get screwed .
'Cashu people'
Report slur
It’s just a proof that the mint signed it, the mint could be bs, so the proof doesn’t really mean anything unless its a mint you trust.
At the end of the day, when accepting these payments the only way to truly verify if it’s legit is to redeem it to your lightning node.
For the offline mint case you could really only do that with a whitelist of mints you trust, which isn’t actually that bad.
that's true, but being trustworthy is a very achievable thing for mints.
I am respect and salute to people who can create something like this . It took hard work 👏
Although it would be bad for the user, since they likely wouldn’t have the exact same mint that is whitelisted, so the offline benefits dematerialize
With Cashu 402 the merchant / receiver decides which mints are used to pay. So you choose mints that you have some trust in.
Yes true in that case . Is that any way for Proof of Trust the mint issuer ? If so how ..
isn’t this terrible for the users who tries to pay and it fails? seems like you would only want to do this in the offline case, but accept any + redeem to lightning for everything else
I see a future with a large number of trusted mints, including mints that are guaranteed. So even if you don't trust the mint but you trust the guarantor then you're still good. And if you trust both then I guess you're double good.
It’s very transparent.
> User requests resource
> Server responds with Cashu payment request (encodes requirements like which mint to use, which pubkey to lock to, amount, etc.)
> user creates matching token and replays the request (this time with token in header)
> server verifies the token and responds with resource
All of this can be automated. If the user does not have a matching token, the wallet will do an automatic mint->mint swap. It’s pretty seamless
If the receiver wants to give the sender this kind of assurance then it should be on the receiver to choose a trusted mint. And if the sender is not cool with the receiver's chosen mint then it should be on the sender to make the receiver aware of that.
> Server responds with Cashu payment request (encodes requirements like which mint to use, which pubkey to lock to, amount, etc.)
Ah nice thats the key bit that makes this work. If the wallet can support this swap automatically then great! very cool.
Maybe not directly applicable to your use case here, but mints can help as mixers if nothing else. Another use case is sending offline payments. You need to be online to receive (so you can redeem) but the sender is now untethered to the lightning gateway.
Privacy. That's it I think, but it's not insignificant for things like this.
true
I see the value of cashu as a merchant because there are very few customers who pay with sats. It requires a lot of management to keep lightning liquidity balanced for an occassional in person payment.
Now with Zeus POS + cashu + Square I have an integrated inventory system where staff can ring up customers like normal, have my inventory pulled, the customer can scan qr code, get a normal receipt and we receive payment without fussing with liquidity.
The customer can use ecash or their own lightning wallet as we are presenting a lightning invoice qr code. Then we can sweep the ecash from the mint into a lighting channel on Zeus at the end of the day hopefully reducing fees.
but do you currently accept token from any mint or from a whitelist? that is the main thing I couldn't get my head around. it sounds like the cashu devs are working on a swap mechanism for wallets so that this is seamless for the user.
I think the main thing to consider is that the sender is scanning a lightning invoice qr code from our mint of choice. They can be spending from any mint or from their lightning balance.
The sender pays a ln invoice created by the mint we choose, which then issues us the ecash.
We aren't getting sent raw ecash tokens from various mints!
The mint has to maintain the liquidity we just get paid and withdraw as we please.
I’m still confused about Cashu. No one has clearly articulated how it works to me. I’ve asked “where do I spend it?” and haven’t received an answer. Some people barely understand Bitcoin and its uses. How does one expect someone to understand Cashu on top of it? I’m being serious.
What are the benefits of using Cashu? Is there a white paper about it? Does it have a mathematical foundation? What’s the purpose? What problems will it solve?
Someone can chime in. I’m all ears. Be respectful.
If you are already using a custodial lightning wallet, you can think of them as the same thing but with better privacy.
Let’s say I’m using the Primal wallet. How does someone send me Cashu and how do I send them Cashu? In my wallet, I have sats. This is where I’m confused.
Right .
But potentially much less reliable because you really need to trust the person or entity who’s running the mint will not just shut it down randomly because it’s an unpaid hobby project of theirs, vs. a company offering a custodial wallet as a business.
Here you go ..this tutorial is a bit old but explains how it works
Thanks. I’ll check it out. Where do I buy/get/receive Cashu?
The website says this…
“eNuts is in early development. Have a look at the list of known issues before you start using the app. The maintainer is NOT a cryptographer and this work has not been fully reviewed. This means that there is very likely a fatal flaw somewhere. Please be aware that there may be unknown bugs, errors, and incomplete features that could cause unexpected behavior or loss of data. Read more.”
And this…
“eNuts has been temporarily removed from the App Store due to a technical issue.”
This is concerning.
Check out this section on that page : Transfer funds to another Cashu wallet:
Cashu.me - Web-based Cashu wallet
Minibits - Mobile wallet for Android
Macadamia - Mobile wallet for iOS
yeah this is a big factor, not sure of any reputable, established mints.
It seems to require extra steps. Some humans are lazy. Others are used to simplicity and convenience. What’s the sales pitch to get people to use it? Is it convincing enough? Some people are skeptical of Bitcoin. How does one get people onboard with Cashu? I’m personally not convinced to use it but someone can change my mind.
Privacy first
Ok but Some people don’t care about privacy. They’re still on Facebook. Is that the main selling point?
yeah pretty much, if you are using a custodial lightning wallet and you’re happy with it, then there’s not any huge benefit to using ecash
i see it as an extra value add as a merchant for customers who care about privacy.
It won’t work as a retail tool because merchants need assurance of settlement. Lightning is better for that purpose. If you as a customer want to pay with ecash over Lightning it still works fine, but there’s no reason for a merchant to have to connect to a random mint to receive your payment because it adds unnecessary friction and risk.
I think it can work like this:
View quoted note →My view (based on not much knowledge) has been that ecash is primarily useful as an accounting system when multiple people are using the same lightning node
Don't use this wallet, it's unmaintained. Use
@Minibitscashu exists because bitcoin in its current state can't deliver a high level of privacy and a good UX without stripping off its entire security model. cashu sats are literally not bitcoin, they are custodial IOUs with no security whatsoever. it's a custodial altcoin toy. nobody is ever going to do anything serious with it.
Interesting take. Thanks for sharing.
I’ll look into it. I’m still not sold on Cashu.
Ecash is offline p2p token which be minted by a lightning btc custody entity
cashu are ious for sats that get issued by a lightning node called a mint
i redeem my ious and the mint pays an ln invoice that shows up as sats in your primal wallet
mints are nodes that pay invoices and issue tokens
lightning network is the bridge between mints
cashu tokens in a mint can be shared without making a lightning payment
Can mints cash out other mints’ cashu tokens into lightning, or are they just paying out lightning and taking on the redemption risk of the token, or ?
Cashu gives new users a free lightning address
They can immediately receive sats over lightning wihout a ln channel
Once a user has enough ecash they can open a channel
That channel can then be closed and those sats are on base chain
Cashu lets users work down the layers, not up, which can open huge potential for those with no sats. There is a hardware cost and education to run a lightning node.
Better trade offs than a normal custodian
Users who share the same mint can have a circular economy inside the mint with no fees and excellent privacy.
The eNuts app is being decommissioned. For anyone who wants to explore ecash, I would recommend starting with Minibits.
mints issue and redeem their own cashu tokens
mints settle between eachother via lightning
ln sats -> ln -> mint -> cashu token
cashu a -> mint a -> ln -> mint b -> cashu b
This is a valid statement… “There is a hardware cost and education to run a lightning node. “
How will it be addressed for the average user? All of this seems cumbersome.
Cashu alleviates those hardware costs. Education can be free. It takes a minute to understand but once it clicks it is a useful tool
This is a good simplified explanation. In my honest humble opinion, it’s still too cumbersome. For the average person, why would they want to deal with an IOU? Recall, they say the main benefit of using Cashu is privacy. All these steps don’t seem worth it. There has to be an easier simplified way. Do people have to run their own node for this? Well good luck with that. The majority of the world don’t even use Bitcoin. People still need to learn about that. Now throw in Cashu. Who is using it like that? For the record, I’m not saying it can’t work in the future. Perhaps it’s ahead of its time. It’s just that Bitcoin doesn’t even have universal adoption. Now people and governments want to use Bitcoin for other things such as ETFs, strategic reserves, capital markets, investments, banks involvement, and other rubbish. 🙄 How does Cashu scale considering Bitcoin is the segue?
I agree that education can be free. Where are those documents and don’t point me to Github? Most people don’t go to Github to get educational materials about products. 🙄
It is quite simple once you take a moment to understand the work flow, use a wallet and understand the terms. It is essentially automated with good ux.
You don't have to run a node
You get better privacy than with a normal custodian
Cashu + nostr can educate and make more people use Bitcoin daily with low to no fees and no need to have hardware or knowledge
I was introduced to cashu in real time. I tested the first cashu zaps from minibits on nostr so I have an excellent history of using it and seeing the utility
Many who are lightning node runners don't see much value as they are confident with lightning liquidity. Lightning has a chicken and egg problem for new users.
Cashu can allow anyone in the world an immediate way to get sats
I learned on nostr and speaking directly with the devs
@calle
@Minibits
@Egge
@npub1cj6n...86t6
@Tim BoumaSounds great. Well someone needs to drop a bomb commercial showing how it works and make it convincing. Marketing is valuable. I want to see a 60 second commercial of what you wrote that’s convincing enough to use.
Yes , I know..in that repo are recommended other wallets:
Cashu.me - Web-based Cashu wallet
Minibits - Mobile wallet for Android
Macadamia - Mobile wallet for iOS
E-cash all it is, is when you initiate a lightning payment. The one running The Mint sends the lightning payment on your behalf. That is why it's private.
Thanks. Who runs the mint? Assuming I’m new to e-cash, what is a mint? Let’s assume I’m not well versed on lightning payments. Why are they not private payments?
amen sir
ecash is fucking amazingly awesome
Y’all are crazy
Oh, I never said it wasn't amazing. I think the concept of chaumian mints is excellent. And there's all kinds of use cases for it. I just don't think we're done looking at it carefully yet. It fundamentally changes UX/UI. Since it requires absolute trust in a single authority, (Fediments notwithstanding) I think it could be most useful when issued by banks of some kind or another. But even just that turns the entire Bitcoin ethos on its head. This doesn't mean that cashu is not a useful technology and that that exact use case would not serve lots and lots of people. Bitcoin is hard to use. This - under the right circumstances - could be easy to use.
@jb55 Made an airplane example a while back that gives a great idea of just ONE detail in a new attack surface...
The part I’m hung up on is you can send ecash to a lightning wallet , and you can send lightning to an e cash wallet
They are both sats
Ecash is sats right?
Just not self custody
Idk I think what I love about it is the no kyc
And for onboarding new users because at first they might not wanna have to pay to open a channel….
What am I missing?
If you build a solution that enables multiple mints and relays to be invisibly plugged in the backend, then the ‘single authority issue’ is not a big deal.
I’ve abstracted it all to ‘funds’. I don’t care whether it’s lightning or ecash.
But doesn't each cashu token have a single issuer? If so, I could see how this could spread your risk around, but still whatever you hold from x mint is that mint, right?
It’s like private banking before the central banks. Very stable and successful in Canada until we decided to copycat the US.
