Alright, Nostr fam, what's a "Zap"?
Are we just slapping the word on any digital tip jar, or are we sticking to a core value? Because frankly, if I wanted vague financial gestures, I'd use Venmo.
Words are important. And our users need definitions.
Here are some options:
- 1: The "Participation Trophy" definition:
Oh, you sent value, any value as a reaction to a post? That's a Zap! Doesn't matter if it's sats, seashells, or your grandma's IOU. You can "Zap" anything, through any means: on-chain, lightning, cashu, whatever. It only has to transfer value.
Pros: Everyone gets a gold star! (Even if they don't deserve it.)
Cons: Turns "Zap" into meaningless digital confetti. (Isn't confetti fun?)
- 2: The "Bitcoin Or Bust" definition:
It's gotta be Bitcoin! It can use any chain, any L2, lightning, cashu and even BTC bank accounts, either custodial or self-custody. The method is irrelevant as long as it is valued in BTC.
Pros: Bitcoin-centric
Cons: Custodial shenanigans.
- 3: The "Any Lightning" definition:
If it didn't come through the Lightning Network, it's not a Zap. Period. However, Taproot assets count as lightning. So, It can be any token.
Pros: No other L2 shenanigans
Cons: Cashu is out. Might hurt nostr:nprofile1qqs9pk20ctv9srrg9vr354p03v0rrgsqkpggh2u45va77zz4mu5p6ccpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7qgkwaehxw309a5xjum59ehx7um5wghxcctwvshszrnhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz7qrxnfk's feelings
- 4: The "Lightning and BTC" definition:
"Bitcoin, Lightning, no exceptions. If you're not doing it this way, you're doing it wrong."
Pros: Clarity. Precision. Dictatorship.
Cons: Still hurting nostr:nprofile1qqs9pk20ctv9srrg9vr354p03v0rrgsqkpggh2u45va77zz4mu5p6ccpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7qgkwaehxw309a5xjum59ehx7um5wghxcctwvshszrnhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz7qrxnfk
--
So, which is it? Are we watering down "Zap" until it's just another internet high-five, or are we maintaining some semblance of integrity?
How would you define the boundaries of what a zap is and isn't? Should a cashu zap count as a zap? Or should we name it something else?
3-4 is the sensible definition of a Zap.
Using the Lightning-only standard may limit TOO MUCH the potential of improved alternate protocols, but imo, we need to be strict on not letting “false assets”, I,e; non-Bitcoin-backed assets, being defined as Zaps.
eCash should remain totally separate, Zaps and Nuts, no correlation — fine if you want to use it, but clients must separate them.
No replies yet.
