Thread

Zero-JS Hypermedia Browser

Relays: 5
Replies: 3
Generated: 17:44:08
avatar
casey npub1tdew...kx8c
There can only be 21million bitcoin. Custodial lighting providers have lightning channels opened and backed with bitcoin. Ecash is tokens. Not bitcoin. You can send them gold or sneakers or whatever has “value” to you and them and they issue tokens. As many as they want to make and issue. Yes. Both require trust. Both can theoretically pay lightning invoices. But that doesn’t make them the same.
2025-10-27 02:01:21 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent 2 replies ↓
Login to reply

Replies (3)

avatar
Dikaios1517 dikaios1517@nostrplebs.com npub1kun5...3lhe
How does eCash pay a Lightning invoice that is somehow different from using sats locked in a Lightning channel? Moreover, what mechanism is there to keep a regular Lightning wallet custodian from issuing more IOUs than they have sats to back them? Answers: eCash wallets use Lightning channels to pay Lightning invoices. Just like every other custodian. Lightning custodians can also arbitrarily issue more IOUs than they have actual sats to back them up, just like eCash wallets can. Thise supposed differences of yours are not differences whatsoever.
2025-10-27 02:07:11 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent 1 replies ↓ Reply
avatar
Dikaios1517 dikaios1517@nostrplebs.com npub1kun5...3lhe
No disagreement here. eCash absolutely is NOT Bitcoin. My co tention has nothing to do with trying to argue that eCash is Bitcoin in any way. It 100% is not Bitcoin. My contention is that no other custodial IOU is Bitcoin either, and that there is not anything better about using a custodial Lightning wallet than there is about using eCash.
2025-10-27 02:14:14 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent 1 replies ↓ Reply