Nostr

If you send an encrypted note that includes the silent address and txid, this would be a verifiable onchain private zap. A receipt of a silent payment from another user. Since it’s encrypted it does not dox utxos.

It’s verifiable because only the only the owner of the input secret key would be able to generate the same shared secret and subsequent bitcoin address as the owner of the silent addresses secret key.

So if the encrypted nostr note contained the shared secret then you would know that a particular nostr user actually sent that transaction.

It would also allow silent wallets to skip the scanning process which takes about two hours. I wonder if onchain zaps could accelerate silent payments adoption.

The downside of this approach is that only the sender and receiver can verify the zap. I haven’t thought a way to make verifiable onchain public zaps without doxing utxos, if thats even possible. nostr:note19yyhq07t02zzzuu6mxmfkc9nt4aadetsp04yztnnj32ys6ztqzpqm8jcux

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Chuck Langstrumpf 1y ago

with current fees and blocksize limit, i do not understand why i would do that

jb55 1y ago

this is such a bizarre take. onchain has many benefits: easier to self custody, etc, and still makes sense for many types of transactions. Current fees? I do onchain txs many times per month without any issues.

nobody 1y ago

you sound convincing will

simply am behind on the literature

have to circle back

jamw 1y ago

This sounds like it will skip the onchain > lightning > onchain pain in the arse, opening of channels, refilling/emptying zap wallet processes that no one enjoys.

jb55 1y ago

This is not a replacement for lightning zaps. It would have different use cases. You can’t have public amounts for example (in its current form). This might be better for settling tabs with friends or commerce on nostr?

Chuck Langstrumpf 1y ago

sure its better for self custody but with fees already ranging from 1 to 50 usd, i dont see the point for "zaps", which imo are micropayments mostly

Johnathan Corgan 1y ago

The privacy of of "only the sender and receiver can verify the zap" seems to be a feature, not a bug to fix.

jb55 1y ago

agreed, public onchain amounts is a can of worms that I’m happy to keep on the lightning zaps side

average_bitcoiner 1y ago

This is erriely similar to the blinded signatures used in Cashu/ecash.

Melvin Carvalho 1y ago

Proper innovation, this