Thread

With Signal there is a good match on freedom values. Not sure if a „Bitcoin for YouTube“ or „Bitcoin for Instagram“ campaign work that well.

💯 . it has to make sense.

I think we ultimately need to get people used to using Bitcoin the network rather than the asset - fiat to fiat over the Bitcoin network, then fiat to Bitcoin and bitcoin to fiat, and ultimately Bitcoin - Bitcoin (whatever layer - this should be transparent). I think lightning wallets like nostr:nprofile1qqsvn0dkjt80raqrxd470c98n7zrdehmcvj6p5hgw3kyku6zyd8z0fqpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsfkw85c and seamless merchant integration like nostr:nprofile1qqsvwct7ssehccgu040egxe4k8k9ru4wd605r2kfv9sf94gsu8pftcqpr9mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctv9uq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7tcmc5daf are the way forward for normies to start using bitcoin without realising and for merchants to adopt due to saving fees. Bitcoin over Signal is great but I hardly have any friends and family on Signal, and hardly know any bitcoiners IRL (partly opsec) - the intersection of these two groups yields a single person in my social group (my brother who doesn’t really care about either all that much!). Maybe I am an outlier…

> instead of promoting a new app or asking people to meet us, we should try to meet people where they already are Have you tried to meet Signal where it’s at? What’s in it for them?

This conveniently ignores that Cashu is custodial, so it’s not bitcoin, so it’s not adoption. This is also what nostr:npub12rv5lskctqxxs2c8rf2zlzc7xx3qpvzs3w4etgemauy9thegr43sf485vg used to say iirc: cashu != bitcoin and cashu isn’t for scaling bitcoin. It also ignores that a product like Signal is used by millions of user, most who probably don’t like bitcoin. I’m pretty sure it’s not the mission of Signal to push bitcoin adoption. They will probably get a lot of backlash if they would even consider this, without even mentioning that it’s not even bitcoin but suggesting to use custodial trusted third parties. This will look like a joke in MSM.

So basically, your section for decision makers basically only talks about privacy, but doesn’t actually mention anything that would be important for the decision making process like that it’s custodial and it’s illegal to run a mint. Are you expecting Signal to forward their users to anonymous mint operators that are breaking the law?

what’s your suggestion for how signal could integrate bitcoin with the same privacy guarantees and ease of use?

I wouldn't say that using custodial bitcoin "isn't bitcoin" – I don't see any value in that argument. millions of people use bitcoin through cashapp for example.

or when rumble announces bitcoin tipping for their users but it's custodial, or when miners mine bitcoin but it's custodial. the argument is just to make a point but not to convey any meaningful information.

just custodial bitcoin

So you agree with my points and this is a bad idea?

Comparing Cashu with CashApp regarding using bitcoin or not is a good point. It will take more time to reply than I currently have, so I will reply later.

Did you not use to say “cashu != bitcoin” and “cashu is not scaling bitcoin” though?

yeah i know think integrating cashu into signal is a really bad idea, no one should build this. you’ve totally changed my mind on this. thank you.

I didn’t reply to your question because you also didn’t reply to my question, so why should I? > Are you expecting Signal to forward their users to anonymous mint operators that are breaking the law?

Also, I’m not here to change your mind, I’m here to ask difficult questions so you can tell me where I’m wrong or see where you are wrong.

Scaling Bitcoin requires self custody IMO, that's a useful technical definition. Similarly, using cashu means using Bitcoin, same as using wallet of satoshi is using Bitcoin, or cashapp. Using a bank account is using Fiat. The bank account isn't fiat either. Same with credit cards. I'm ok if anyone disagreed with that though, since the disagreement has no practical implication. For me this is all sophistry. I don't like arguing about meanings of words with no productive outcome. Let the philosophers do it. As long as we agree on the technical properties of these things, we can find agreement on a deeper level IMO.

Breaking the law? That stretches it a bit. Did you make a legal analysis? I know people who did and their lawyers would disagree with you on this.

IANAL, but Mints are most definitely breaking the law. Why are you wearing a mask btw?

Ok, sorry for the question then. I always assumed it was because you agree that mint operators are breaking the law. But you really think mint operators are not breaking the law? Specifically money transmission laws?

So, public cashu mints on bitcoin are providers of bearer tokens, they custody other people assets (after peg-in) and enables asset mixing and anonymous payments. Are you saying that this is legal and does need registration with some authority in the place you live?

To come back to the example of CashApp: My definition of “using bitcoin” is when a transaction happens on lightning or on chain. So CashApp-to-CashApp is not using bitcoin since I assume it’s just a database transaction. However, I would consider CashApp to any other lightning node or vice versa “using bitcoin”, yes, even if the other entity is also a custodial service. So yes, you can use bitcoin with cashu as long as an actual transaction happens on the network. So mint and melt, but not swaps.

AFAICT, this is exactly what nostr:npub12rv5lskctqxxs2c8rf2zlzc7xx3qpvzs3w4etgemauy9thegr43sf485vg is saying but I don’t think we will get a reply from him. This is a hot topic. (I assume you meant “does not need”.)