Based on cursory glance of https://github.com/retrnull/garnet and review of kind 1814 notes and kind 0 profile of common 1814 testers...

In kind 0, adding a field for `cryptocurrency_addresses` where there value is an object whose fields are cryptocurrency types (e.g. `bitcoin`, `monero`, `arrr`) and value is a corresponding address for that type.

nostr:npub1wamvxt2tr50ghu4fdw47ksadnt0p277nv0vfhplmv0n0z3243zyq26u3l2

nostr:npub1j29xk9mnfzcp9twyu0f20zjzk72603a23ax94led2xvxz4sjd99qssssdj

nostr:npub1e6ejh5glnaj4at3l4ggqjs7pp082qj24rklg0uvmmzsly33rqe9s8umxgr

nostr:npub1skkpnkc4vfe586ul425nd7s4a4qqm6nnacr8j52k72tmguyhgltqk8t32y

nostr:npub153pgcxexl4pn0j906t725uj5jkn9hxzemcg635jd60nwzmmysa7q6qgmfn

I would recommend that the cryptocurrency type be the common ticker symbols vs english names to avoid some degree of ambiguity, or even use the coin type numbers from https://github.com/satoshilabs/slips/blob/master/slip-0044.md if restructured into array format.

For example, in kind 0, instead of this for "cryptocurrency_addresses"...

```

{"monero":"55fSXyCcqkdikrxogPb16UKN3SYhkpyH32Ge6ECkAk3PhrBbXEaNcNf3o82q6vEcaR6Hp1YWdDDA6BqUJW1FL3P5Jvo5TyD"}

```

consider...

```

{"XMR": 1"55fSXyCcqkdikrxogPb16UKN3SYhkpyH32Ge6ECkAk3PhrBbXEaNcNf3o82q6vEcaR6Hp1YWdDDA6BqUJW1FL3P5Jvo5TyD"}

```

or...

```

[[128,"55fSXyCcqkdikrxogPb16UKN3SYhkpyH32Ge6ECkAk3PhrBbXEaNcNf3o82q6vEcaR6Hp1YWdDDA6BqUJW1FL3P5Jvo5TyD"]]

```

And maybe the kind 1814 should reference the given ticker or coin type as well for correlation to expedite verification

There's no NIPs referencing kind 1814 as far as I can tell, nor pull requests in the nostr-protocol/nips repo. Strongly encourage writing a specification for this to allow for wider adoption.

All I want to add is that this wallet-address-posting approach should ideally be limited to Monero and other coins that don't need address rotation, like Ethereum Classic

For a coin like dogecoin or bitcoin that needs to avoid address reuse, my SIP-701/702 ideas might be good, or maybe NIP-570 by nostr:npub1melv683fw6n2mvhl5h6dhqd8mqfv3wmxnz4qph83ua4dk4006ezsrt5c24 - I still don't actually know if NIP-570 avoids address reuse

nostr:note1qqqq96uaaau86jcw62867d3p9wj4n5624f6jmzl95yzugv55qs7se7rcal

nostr:note1duzm6gg36z47hlgv5myltul3jxcd9gvz2wyz4hpeqxdakeuw3tks88f928

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

For bitcoin, I'd recommend Silent Payments (BIP-352 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0352.mediawiki) which does provide a means to avoid address reuse.

Is there a dogecoin version?

Looking at how the spec functions, it seems like it should work for dogecoin, I just wonder if there's an implementation