It’s okay if you don’t like my criticism, no problem with that. But the thing is, your identity can accumulate BTC over time. Nostr identities are supposed to be long term, right? LN Zaps are different, they don’t have the same heuristics, and as you said they can be faked, on chain they cannot. I mean, you can fake the Nostr event you’re creating, but it is truly verifiable by anyone at any time. You could also move the funds to a cold wallet, but that doesn’t change the fact that you are in possession of that BTC. We already know that on chain transactions are very traceable, and if you really want to break those heuristics you need to learn and apply certain techniques, which the majority of users aren’t going to bother with. Aside from all that, it’s just very bad practice... Also, for your use case tips, rewards, v4v, the amounts are usually small, which makes on‑chain transfers unattractive because of the fees, and dust limits. Just to be clear, I didn’t mean to start a discussion. I just wanted to express my concerns and hope other users can understand the implications that seems you guys are underestimating.

Replies (2)

Oh I have fee concerns too. I don't really like on-chain zaps. I've told Alex this dozens of times. I just think that for a small spending wallet, accumulation or size is not an issue.
For me, this is quick funzies/neat and other project and business usecases, is why i implemented this on my stuff, and I agree it's important to mention to the users the public-ness of this and its potential implications, however, this is also a 'step 1' of a two-stop goal, for me at least, where the other step is 'nostr silent payments (nsp)', so there'd be an option to send to a random address controlled by the receiver.