Nostr

Interesting, yes.

Hopefully the momentum for dual funding will grow as that will be a big part of payjoin making more sense to people (obviously there are various flavours of ideas that overlap, even splicing as well, but my point is mainly that it's in the LN related niche that this will find its best home, straightforward payments were always a tough sell to merchants so user wallets never got that enthused).

(Side note, but curious as to why JM has a random reddit link instead of the 0.7 release notes or the Payjoin docs in the repo? https://github.com/JoinMarket-Org/joinmarket-clientserver/blob/master/docs/PAYJOIN.md

It was bad enough having to wait literally 2 years for Luke, or whoever it was, to merge the fact that JM supported payjoin in BIP78 references 😆 despite the fact that it was implemented straight away (also we had another version of payjoin originally that was custom, before bip78).)

Dan Gould 2y ago

Updated the wiki with the proper docs you linked 😎 LOL at waiting so long.

There definitely is a lot of confusion about payjoin as a dual-funded tx and payjoin as the bip78 p2ep protocol. What do you think of listing CLN, BoS, and other dual funding, interactive-tx, or splicing software as Non-BIP78?

I’ve always thought the consumer/merchant paradigm was short sighted since, yes lightning wins vs on-chain for payments. I think it makes more sense for transfers between exchanges / funds especially because they’re so sensitive to the marginal costs of fees which can be minimized with the kind of batching networked interactions allow for.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

waxwing 2y ago

There were always big differences of opinion around it. Like, 1/ merchants are intrinsically online so it makes more sense . But 2/ if people do this p2p it's a better, and easier privacy gain. 3/but pure p2p payments are extremely rare compared to merchant or business payments.

You bring up b2b payments, that's interesting.

Sorry i have to cut this short but yeah, int