No, the zaps spec specifically requires sending the transaction details (sender and receiver) to relays. Like that's literally the point of zaps. Read the spec for zaps I shared.
That's why I said that this doesn't really make sense.
Login to reply
Replies (2)
I am proposing an expansion to the concept of Zaps. Anon Zaps or publicly relayed Zaps. Routing would depend on the asset zapped and user preference.
I could send direct P2P wallet Zaps or route through a publicly viewable route or route anon. Automatic signing to publicly prove Zap ownership.
I understand this is not the current concept of a Zap, but it is what should be developed imo. Any asset, any chain, any npub.
I can get into why that's a waste of time separately, but let's say you do that - why don't you just use lightning network for the transfer and routing and swap the coins in the wallets for whatever each side desires? That's possible today without changes.
The interesting thing about lightning network is that as soon as sender and recipient confirm that they received what they wanted, the transaction is settled. They could transact cows or bubblegums and the lightning network would settle those.