100% correct, and we see this behavior on stablecoins. Different exchanges rates based on consumer confidence

cashu tokens encode the mint they're redeemable at, so the ticker is redundant. I can see the argument for comparing exchange rates, but in practice its more like 1 or 0: can i redeem or not.

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?

is lightning "bitcoin"?

of course it is. the amounts held lightning channels is encoded in bitcoin transactions.

i agree that the expectation your ecash will be there in a year is lower than on chain. i think there's a way that you can say the same of lightning. i'm proposing a system that would be somewhere in between. do we call all of these different things, just because the durability is different? what about alby or phoenix? this seems fundamentally different than stablecoins to me

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.

that's true – there's no cryptographic constraint on token issuance or maintenance of reserves. still, it's possible for a lightning channel to be stolen by your partner. from the user's perspective these look the same, but yes, one is far more likely than the other. in fact, the whole reason i started working on deposits was to solve problems in ecash. ultimately this is impossible by its nature, so i ended up building on lightning. labelling seems like a waste of energy. to me, even in a random mint, bitcoin is bitcoin – the probability of loss is a separate thing. if liquid wants a different name, that seems more like marketing than an inherent difference in the nature of what you hold

for me the worst part of ecash is that the token will always go to zero, because there's no way for an honest operator to leave the system. miners come and go, lightning channels open and close, but every cashu token has an expiration date

> still, it's possible for a lightning channel to be stolen by your partner how so

if you're not online and you don't have any watchtowers set up? i'm not saying it's *expected*, i'm saying it's *possible*. at what probability do you change the name?

Lightning ⚡️ like you never light before 😁

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

you're missing my point. is arc "bitcoin"? spark? citrea? gbtc? zeroconf channels? submarine swaps? hodl invoices? coinbase? baking the expectation of durability into the name leads to so many names that people won't know what bitcoin even means. cashu is still "bitcoin". it's bitcoin ecash instead of on-chain or lightning bitcoin

i define bitcoin L2s as the ability to unilaterally exit. I think its the only reasonable definition. so any L2 with this definition is bitcoin to me. ecash is not bitcoin, liquid is not bitcoin. ark is, lightning is, etc.

unilateral exit certainly improves the expectation that your funds will be there in the future, but there's still a lot of caveats. for instance, it's probably easier to lose your funds with ark than with an etf. they're both very unlikely, but "unilateral exit" isn't something that the rest of the world is going to get hung up on. and, it seems impossible to scale to billions of people while providing them, which is why i explicitly designed deposits without them. i guess we'll see what people call it if anyone uses it