Liquid apls have been very dilligent in labelling liquid Bitcoin as LBTC instead of $BTC to avoid confusion, i think ecash custodians should do the same by branding their tokens as something other than $BTC
For example Bob's ecash tokens should be $bobBTC and alice's ecash tokens should be $aliceBTC
Free banking theory implies that $bobBTC and $aliceBTC can and should have different exchange rates based on consumer confidence
Replies (5)
the spec should encode the short token name so that clients can properly render it as a token, not bitcoin
otherwise I guess it could use the domain favicon?
of course it is. the amounts held lightning channels is encoded in bitcoin transactions.
the token identity becomes a lot more important because cashu tokens are liabilities. with lightning the provenance doesn't matter as much because once its in my channel I don't care where it came from, the transaction is final. with cashu the transaction is not final, and only become so when you liquidate it into a channel you control.
> still, it's possible for a lightning channel to be stolen by your partner
how so
And risk losing the entire channel in a penalty transaction? I could go offline and have a watchtower ready to steal funds in the opposite direction
