<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><title>Sir Spencer - Wolf of KC 🐺 wrote</title><author_name>Sir Spencer - Wolf of KC 🐺 (npub1yv…dwzdu)</author_name><author_url>https://yabu.me/npub1yvscx9vrmpcmwcmydrm8lauqdpngum4ne8xmkgc2d4rcaxrx7tkswdwzdu</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://yabu.me</provider_url><html>For 2 years I&#39;ve been begging anyone to tell me why ecash is superior to running a lightning node. The only answer is the tired old &#34;muh node too hard&#34; trope.&#xA;&#xA;Modern humans are *so stupid* that they will say running a node is too hard and then walk around with their sats in a pocket full of holes.&#xA;&#xA;The whole point of Bitcoin is trust no one, verify it yourself. If we do not purge this &#34;we need trusted custodians for Gam Gam&#34; mentality we&#39;ve been stuck in lately, this &#34;mass adoption&#34; everyone is so psychotically fixated upon will be meaningless. Mass adoption via custodians is not freedom money.&#xA;&#xA;I can&#39;t see a single problem Ecash solves that a lightning node doesn&#39;t solve more elegantly, and ecash introduces new problems as well. I don&#39;t blame Agron; it&#39;s a larger cultural problem. Everyone here seems to be chasing a misguided incentive where they do the work of a node for the masses who aren&#39;t ready yet. Learning about why Bitcoin matters takes time and real work, but too many are trying to be the guy who invents a short cut to some watered-down &#34;mass adoption&#34;.&#xA;&#xA;A peer-to-peer electronic cash system is a node-to-node electronic cash system. Running a node is the standard, and anything less is simply not going to be good enough. If bitcoiner types truly want mass adoption as they say, they should be hyper-focused on how to run more lightning nodes in more places more easily.&#xA;&#xA;nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqzrrff6vn52y0x6xywymxpmftq2lngvfarakupvtjtsch5l4xaq9qqsqxzxhsa6eg56dtz52235f5rp9d7wefrfuy02ykemfcu3erdn5wtgq6muf9</html></oembed>