For 2 years I've been begging anyone to tell me why ecash is superior to running a lightning node. The only answer is the tired old "muh node too hard" trope. Modern humans are *so stupid* that they will say running a node is too hard and then walk around with their sats in a pocket full of holes. The whole point of Bitcoin is trust no one, verify it yourself. If we do not purge this "we need trusted custodians for Gam Gam" mentality we've been stuck in lately, this "mass adoption" everyone is so psychotically fixated upon will be meaningless. Mass adoption via custodians is not freedom money. I can't see a single problem Ecash solves that a lightning node doesn't solve more elegantly, and ecash introduces new problems as well. I don't blame Agron; it's a larger cultural problem. Everyone here seems to be chasing a misguided incentive where they do the work of a node for the masses who aren't ready yet. Learning about why Bitcoin matters takes time and real work, but too many are trying to be the guy who invents a short cut to some watered-down "mass adoption". A peer-to-peer electronic cash system is a node-to-node electronic cash system. Running a node is the standard, and anything less is simply not going to be good enough. If bitcoiner types truly want mass adoption as they say, they should be hyper-focused on how to run more lightning nodes in more places more easily. View quoted note →