Actually to say "collected my payment data" is very misleading in this setup. I've delegated the invoice creation task to Amboss to make paying me easier. Consequently, Amboss is generating data and providing me the data with which to receive a payment.
Discussion
I find the term ghost invoice misleading. It seems to imply there is no trace but this is the opposite of true. All payments are known to Amboss. It's not so much a privacy technique as a surveillance technique. Should have called it a spook invoice.
Lol just wait till you try to account for it on your node and see that there's no record of the transaction...just the balance increases.
The name comes from Phantom Nodes and Payments, which is the core technology used in the service to allow anyone to get the UX benefits of a lightning address.
Regarding privacy, this isn't a privacy tool per se, but Amboss is unable to prove any payment happened. It's just a delegated invoicing service.
I think what people are missing in privacy discussions is that traditional payments are completely surveilled and lightning is far superior, but has UX challenges. Ghost payments address the UX pieces and make a small tradeoff wrt information revealed.
> Amboss is unable to prove any payment happened.
You have to make an authenticated request to retrieve the preimage. How is this not proof that a payment happened?
Only authenticated people can request information, but we don't have proof that the information was used to claim a payment.
Having all the tools doesn't mean you used them. Insufficient for proof.
Not sure in what context this kind of proof is necessary or useful but in the context of privacy it is neither. The request itself is all you need to draw inferences.
I'm really not sure what you're optimizing for if you're opposed to inferences?
You should be crying out against zaps if that's the case.
