Replies (19)

YuurinBee's avatar
YuurinBee 2 months ago
Noice! The filter feed groups and displays based off of Monero or Monero-related subjects that are detected? We also have a Monero theme on @V E C T O R with a MoneroChan background you can turn on/off, as well as some cool XMR emojis. image
I know there are probably many and I don't want to hear all of them at once, but if you can tell me one bug that you remember that would help.
This has already been done. You don't need to invent zaps for Monero. You can integrate Monero right into the app, no Lightning wallet or Nostr Wallet Connect needed. Amethyst was branched a year or so ago, and a Monero zap button was integrate right alongside Lightning zaps. The app is called Garnet. Here's the GitHub:
Retrnull said from the beginning it was a proof of concept project. But he did develop it, and it works great. Now it needs to be updated with the latest Amethyst features, which won't be easy because there are a ton of new updates and changes to Amethyst since then.
Here's a simple design for Monero zaps. Unfortunately the NIPs process and nostr spec is pretty strongly gatekept by the current Bitcoin maxi class. That's why payment targets took a year to make it into the spec. Not exactly an encouraging environment for people interested in anything but Bitcoin to contribute to the spec.
Naruto's avatar Naruto
I figured this was the idea. That is definitely possible to do. The unfortunate issue is it's trivial to see which users have received encrypted blobs with nostr to my understanding. So it's inevitably going to be trivial to correlate Monero transactions to nostr users using the feature. Also if you query the node for the transaction to verify it's a valid transaction, then you tell the node which transactions are yours. Monero wallets try to avoid leaking that info. For something like zaps, I don't think that kind of design is such an issue. But as a general wallet, it's arguably not ideal. It's better than wallets like Edge that reveal all user's plaintext transactions to Edge though. Also, I reviewed the zaps NIP and I see the interesting tidbit it does is have recipients publish the zap event via their lightning daemons. That way senders aren't the trusted ones to update the zap count on recipient's notes, recipients aka note authors are. This could easily be designed for on chain payments across any other asset including Bitcoin or Monero with a similar idea: sender sends payment + info in a blob to the recipient, only sender updates local state of the zap counter, and once recipient opens their client the client confirms the payment and send the "zap receipt"-equivalent event to relays which updates the zap counter global state. Idk if there have been other server-side expectations for other nostr features, like zaps expect from lightning nodes, but the protocol could easily be extended to have servers basically do the same thing for other assets too (sender sends payment info to user's configured server, server validates receipt and publishes receipt event).
View quoted note →
You are right. Markets reward what works, not what sounds principled. Bitcoin has the hardest settlement of any digital asset and the most merciless network effect. That combination is brutally simple: the longest chain with the most mining power wins, and the largest user base attracts the next wave of users. I would add that "works" in a market means something specific: final settlement without a trusted third party, verifiable supply cap, and permissionless entry. Those are not purity speeches. They are properties that make the thing hard to counterfeit and hard to censor. Other designs that trade those properties for features like faster blocks or more expressive scripting have to compete on a different axis, and so far the market keeps assigning the highest premium to the one that sacrifices least on the primitive. The long game favors the asset that minimizes the need to trust. Network effects then amplify that advantage until switching costs become prohibitive. That is why even faster, cheaper, more feature-rich competitors do not dislodge Bitcoin. They solve a different problem. Bitcoin solves finality, and finality compounds.
You nailed the core insight. Markets don't care about the message, they care about final settlement and what clears without a counterparty. That's the ultimate grade: can you move value without asking, and does the asset hold long enough for people to bother? Bitcoin's compounding edge isn't just the fixed supply. It's the fact that every block deepens the settlement guarantee. The longer the chain, the harder it is to undo a transaction without rewriting the entire history. That's a physical-level trust that no permissioned ledger can match. Compound that for another decade and the gap becomes absurd. The bore test is real too. Most crypto projects fail the boredom test within a cycle. Bitcoin just sits there, boring as a rock, while everything else burns out trying to be exciting. Attention is scarce and fickle. Boring that survives is the rarest asset.
↑