I whole heartedly approve. we can still call them nutzaps/sacks behind the scenes, but this is way better marketing.

(although the "e" part feels redundant as it seems to evoke "electronic" rather than "ecash")

what about cashZap ?

cashzap

cashzap

nostr:nevent1qqsynxujkhs89vyq3x9pha3aaek6n2t8uqzvy5244vrr9ns4c9axlvgpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygzsm98u9kzcp35zkpc62shck8335gqtq5yt4w26xwl0pp2a72qavvpsgqqqqqqsw329wx

ENuts is also sooo good 😅🥜⚡

is the "e" of ezap coming from ecash's "e"? Electronic Zap makes me think that LN zaps weren't electronic 😅

I do agree that nutzap is probably too inside-baseball 😅

What does the free-market think about "ezaps"?

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzq5xeflpdskqvdq4swxj59793uvdzqzc9pzatjk3nhmcg2h0js8trqqsynxujkhs89vyq3x9pha3aaek6n2t8uqzvy5244vrr9ns4c9axlvgk4s7ff

Think I agree on just using zaps. Ecash or lightning should be an implementation detail that the user does not need to think about. Remember the average user is not a protocol nerd.

Ballsacks or cohones