Thank you, but my point is: why is cashu considered "bitcoin" when it has all properties of a shitcoin? It is not bitcoin, you need to swap into it - like with every other shitcoin, it is not linked to any BTC, it is non custodial (which is completely against any bitcoin ethos), you have the mint rug risk etc.
Monero and every other shitcoin is also denominated in BTC, when you look at the Shitcoin/BTC chart.
For me it is just unfathomable that custodial long strings of text are considered "on a bitcoin standard" - it is like writing "i owe you 1000 sats" on a piece of paper and calling that a bitcoin scaling solution ;)
Replies (2)
I think you have a misunderstood function of how mints operate and we vary in definition of shitcoin 😄 riddle me this though, what is the difference between a non-custodial lightning wallet and a ecash wallet ? Because that’s where normie users are usually okay with staying. Both wallets I would definitely call on a Bitcoin standard though, as “working capital”, I don’t fully custody those sats but they are still sats. It’s the perfect scaling solution 😏 not everything needs to be onchain sir.
Like maybe what your saying is that once a user has to shift from onchain to cashu you are effectively swapping to a worse than self custody lightning IOU state, so you’ve lost the most valuable part of it ( it’s sov properties ) so in effect it could as well just be bananacoin. Where I’d say it becomes more hassle to also have to keep track of what the monetary value of bananacoin is. So aslong as it’s pegged to bitcoin and represents a 1/1 it fits well as a broad scaling solution. Since most don’t care to have that sov properties until it hits a certain amount of value. (Side note: new user buying bitcoin on lightning brings them already in the cashu space ) Also not saying Monero is bananacoin just you know fit some altcoin in there.
