Thank you. TLDR, need to read it completely later. So how do i have to understand that? You have a wallet or a website you interact with, it displays you the ecash string, it has to have the ability to log that string. I dont say it does but you have the ability to create the client in that way that it can log it, no? Also really funny for me ( from the faq): CAUTION: Choose mints where you trust or know and trust the operator. Use small amounts or immediately redeem tokens or swap tokens to your own mint. Who the fuck says openly: "Hi, i am Joe Schmock, i am your friendly ecash operator running this Mint, i live in 123 Retardvillage. If you want to arrest me, just come by, i have not learned anything from the Tornado cash lawsuit. Apart from that, use my tokens so you can buy drugs anonymously online. Love to you all. " Am i getting something completely wrong here or are they delusional?

Replies (1)

No, you're not delusional, it is definitely a concern. Users will be more willing to trust known mint runners with a good reputation, but that makes the mints easier targets for the state. Anon mint runners would be harder to find, but easier for them to rugpull users without consequence. The arguments I hear are that federated mints would at least make it harder to rug users, ability to quickly spin up/move mints to better jurisdictions, and to only keep spending cash on it them - not large amounts you can't afford to lose. Even though I think the strong privacy/offchain/instant aspects of ecash is cool the major problem I have a hard time getting past is reintroducing trusted intermediates again when the whole point of Bitcoin was to remove them