erik on Nostr: Ever since I started designing for Bitcoin eCash wallets, I've noticed something: ...
Ever since I started designing for Bitcoin eCash wallets, I've noticed something: Getting eCash feels like there's this extra step the user has to complete: Swapping sats via lightning for eCash. I heard this comparison on the Bitcoin Review podcast once – imagine eCash is like poker chips at a casino. It kind of clicked. We give dollars, get chips; give sats, get eCash. Wondering how to best frame this to the end user. Abstract this extra step away or embrace it? What to name it? "Topping up"? "Exchanging"? I like the erm "exchange" because it suggests a two-way process. Users can convert sats to eCash and vice versa.
Published at
2023-09-09 18:10:37Event JSON
{
"id": "7d8344dd40f7addcbd85c690f31a04e5e08b7067a8c9b9edaf49c6386e84d3a5",
"pubkey": "1021c8921548fa89abb4cc7e8668a3a8dcebae0a4c323ffeaf570438832d6993",
"created_at": 1694283037,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [],
"content": "Ever since I started designing for Bitcoin eCash wallets, I've noticed something: Getting eCash feels like there's this extra step the user has to complete: Swapping sats via lightning for eCash. I heard this comparison on the Bitcoin Review podcast once – imagine eCash is like poker chips at a casino. It kind of clicked. We give dollars, get chips; give sats, get eCash. Wondering how to best frame this to the end user. Abstract this extra step away or embrace it? What to name it? \"Topping up\"? \"Exchanging\"? I like the erm \"exchange\" because it suggests a two-way process. Users can convert sats to eCash and vice versa.",
"sig": "151305f73a526d27f684c56e33b2664a8f646b9a19905a4c5edb8d22f731b4e95a77d845d1a758e96846e29d5bef267e3ec49f57d6e37b9bb592119aadd4074c"
}