I fixed privacy of onchain zaps in Ditto
Login to reply
Replies (44)
Easy fix
You know what, at least you are letting them know so I gotta give some props for that I suppose
post this on truth social and bring people with real money to zap over hiya.
big brain move
euro trash 🍪
EZ
Normies incoming any minute now.
any plans for UTXO control?
The signer takes a psbt so the client can do anything. But in Ditto no, I want to hide all that stuff from the user.
dang not even as a side option and clarity as to why someone may concern themselves with learning?
I'm always into learning
But a complex UI to make a transaction? I don't think so. I do want a "zap many" (rain) function though
simple 'lock' or 'unlock' on received transactions would help gate the spending coins.
Could 'lock all'. Then unlock one batch a time? Idk thinking out loud.
inbox/lock model could prevent some avoidable harm if I'm thinking about this right. may have to mock up some simple UI wizardy to explain.
can't stop a 'coin' from being connected to its own history but could stop one 'coin' history from contaminating another.
Better
I like it. Let me know and I'll decide.
You also need to add a line about how this destroys privacy for the ENTIRE bitcoin network too.
People should know they're fucking everyone, not just themselves.
Hyperbolic & profane, but would you like to explain how?
is this a fix or a warning lol?
This.
View quoted note →
Does Bitcoin have on-chain privacy yet?
Silent payments. Payjoin. Increasingly, yes. It does.
Just don’t reuse addresses.
How does silent payments work, if I may ask?
What is hidden from the rest of the world's view (I.e. those not party to the transaction)
Thanks, I will give this a read
Payjoin = #JustChangeOutputPrivatization?
All I want to do is (when it's time to burn the nsec) consolidate all the on-chain zap UTXOs that were ever received into 1 output (where the hygiene starts anew)... no bloody change, ever!
Silent Payments is better than not. I'm using it now, though BlindBit is very experimental and you don't want to trust it to handle large amounts of money. But it hardly delivers on-chain privacy. It's just a nice way to make unique new addresses for every transaction. But then people, when they go to sell Bitcoin, or buy Bitcoin, are going to have a bunch of wallets combined when they deposit to their exchange or send money to the retailer or whatever. And that will break the privacy at spend/exchange time.
Only universal zk-Snarks like Pirate Chain (ARRR) or ring signatures with fullchain membership proorfs (Monero) will give legitimate on-chain privacy and fungibility. And Core has steadfastly refused any proposals that would actually make Bitcoin fungible as currency, like cash.
Saylor is right about this issue:
s/buy Bitcoin/buy things with Bitcoin/
Silent payments fix the address reuse footgun, but they do not make on-chain zaps feel like Lightning. Privacy is necessary. Turning every like into chain state is still weird confetti with better curtains.
i think you can make it feel like it via 0 conf “pending” zaps. Would be great for commerce/larger txns
We need a hero
I wouldn't call it a fix. But education is really important here. So thank you for listening.
You really think the masses are going to be that careful? They're going to see a bitcoin qr code and a balance that says "$10" and they're gonna put it in their btc wallet in their phone.
LOL
you mean :%s/buy Bitcoin/buy things with Bitcoin/g
If your thesis is that the masses aren't that careful, what you just described would not fit, because that's closer to "being careful" - sending or sweeping a bitcoin balance out of the Nostr combo client+wallet purpose-built to accept & manage on-chain zaps, or exporting/importing the private key from it as backup, into a separate btc wallet.
What does this btc wallet look like, anyway? Is it a crapware wallet that people installed despite negative reviews from Gigi & company, that it only has one receiving address & forces spending reuse?
It's not you
We'll see
No
I'm pretty sure I just fixed bitcoin bro. Seen nothing to the contrary
how bitcoin still not has a good built-in privacy layer 16 or so years on, one users do not have to worry about, mildly baffles me every day.
we are standing still and being overtaken by CBDCs at this rate. lol.
Of course Bitcoin has good privacy tools/layers. It's just not the base protocol because it was designed that way (for very good reason).
- Coinjoin
- Silent Payments
- Lightning
- Cashu
I'm saying less experienced Bitcoiners would see a QR code and a balance that says $10 and be like, awesome. I want that in my wallet now. It feels like a cash out. I'm sure plenty of people see zaps as a form of a tiny bit of play money.
If the wallet didn't show your own QR code, it would make so much more sense. It's really not meant to be taken out of the noster ecosystem.
Flipping through my memory of dozens-hundreds of notes I read about this, I think some of the devs' intent seemed to be around letting people break out of the circular zapping back & forth to infinity, but there was also amenability to adding some friction, eg. mixing out.
That's fine if it's an option, but there should also be a unilateral exit without friction or extra fees.
What does $10 even buy you these days?