“We made something awful, and we don’t want to stand behind it. We knew it was a bad idea. Can you please stop criticizing us for the mess we have created. Don’t you have some respect? Also no we’ll continue doing it”
— onchain zappers
Login to reply
Replies (5)
it was a bad idea for Core to refuse to make Bitcoin private for 12 years. Or do virtually anything else, having every real world application of blockchain go to other, now more useful blockchains, while Bitcoin becomes nothing but a shitcoin to stuff in ETFs and retirement portfolios instead of anything to actually use. You are blaming the (quite hilarious) messengers rather than the decadent and corrupt monopoly of Core.
I’d say it lies in both. If people are so concerned, take the split Zcash approach.
I have other concerns with “onchain zaps”, which is that it’s a stupid spec on so many levels:
- can’t specify a multisig / non-npub based address
- implies people that don’t have onchain zaps in their client / don’t prefer them can “receive” them
no. Zcash's privacy is an absolute joke, and this saga is demonstrative of why exactly that is so. If it were opt-in, your Nostr Bitcoin key would not be private, and it would not help you. Beyond that, Zcash transactions are trivial to autocorrelate. The key is aiming for fungibility, the privacy is a side effect. Bitcoin must become fungible, or it will *never be money*. The fact that people are upset at receiving free Bitcoin "the wrong way" proves it is not money. Because nobody is upset at finding a hundred dollar bill.
There is no fungibility, and no privacy, with the split approach. You have to do it like Monero or Pirate Chain, or there becomes a difference in value between unshielded and shielded transactions, and the token is then still not money, because some people will be made you are sending it "the wrong way."
I guess. The good thing though is that after so long, most of the crypto for privacy is stable, so it could be implemented directly.
also, I would be upset if someone made a client that allowed anyone to send any fund via any methods:
The recipient thinks that they are sending it to me, because the client is lying to them that I support this method, while I might not even know it exists.
reminds me of those annoying twitter tipbots
#cointard not happy with the 'coin