Thread

Zero-JS Hypermedia Browser

Relays: 5
Replies: 2
Generated: 20:15:56
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 ↓
Login to reply

Replies (2)

I guess we are at stalemate. Yes. There’s risk in custodial I’m not denying that. That’s not my argument here. My argument is calling ecash tokens bitcoin. When they are by very definition not. And I’ll stand by that part of the statement.
2025-10-27 02:13:15 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent 1 replies ↓ Reply
That's moving the goal posts. I have agreed this entire time that eCash is not Bitcoin. Said it right out the gate here that custodial Lightning is just as much an IOU as eCash: nostr:nevent1qqsgz45fmyxjnumavl3cjk4whlenjktcankn4lacnvcuy54q8drutacprdmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujucnjd9nksarzdak8gtnwv46z7q3qkun5628raxpm7usdkj62z2337hr77f3ryrg9cf0vjpyf4jvk9r9sxpqqqqqqz9qclq3 Neither one is Bitcoin has been my contention all along.
2025-10-27 02:18:40 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent Reply