Considering running Apple silicon just for #[0]. I want unified experience on desktop and mobile
Let's do this! 🤙 Pleb nostr:npub19a0g3pkmxxmuvjxa950l89m96yqc00xt55r74fsa55ecuedhrvxqy40ya9 funded nostr:npub1yevrvtp3xl42sq06usztudhleq8pdfsugw5frgaqg6lvfdewfx9q6zqrkl 's Payjoin on nostr:npub1dccj58jgxvhrf9xfmuw8d2zt8v37zd5wqn8f0hyfsm52hcu84uzqn5qdql 👏. Challenge your friends to do the same!
badged 😎 thank you for your support of bitcoin privacy
Why was this not possible before?
Unlike single-source batching, multi-source optimizes payment flows requiring sequential transactions, like funding lightning channels from exchange withdrawals. Eliminating sequential transactions significantly improves on what was otherwise thought to be the upper limit of fee savings from payment batching.
https://payjoin.substack.com/p/fees-bob-podcast-and-reinforcements
Interaction can reduce fee spend and preserve privacy at the same time. ICYMI on bitcoin-dev:
https://payjoin.substack.com/p/interactive-payment-batching-is-better 
I no longer think bitcoin is a dumb rock
#[1] who has started to use ecash as api tokens
This is a great idea. May they follow in Taiwan’s civic open source movement https://g0v.tw
When deploying a 402 payment required API should one
- Accept Lightning
- Accept service-specific ecash
- ¿por qué no los dos?
Lightning Address is the best pay-to-endpoint UX in fact nostr:note1afl7kxqsqg9jj4pgegez35zy2dd8hkhsf5gqwzsvzgq4wn7kz0ysl8wpjl
Interesting, yes.
Hopefully the momentum for dual funding will grow as that will be a big part of payjoin making more sense to people (obviously there are various flavours of ideas that overlap, even splicing as well, but my point is mainly that it's in the LN related niche that this will find its best home, straightforward payments were always a tough sell to merchants so user wallets never got that enthused).
(Side note, but curious as to why JM has a random reddit link instead of the 0.7 release notes or the Payjoin docs in the repo? https://github.com/JoinMarket-Org/joinmarket-clientserver/blob/master/docs/PAYJOIN.md
It was bad enough having to wait literally 2 years for Luke, or whoever it was, to merge the fact that JM supported payjoin in BIP78 references 😆 despite the fact that it was implemented straight away (also we had another version of payjoin originally that was custom, before bip78).)
Updated the wiki with the proper docs you linked 😎 LOL at waiting so long.
There definitely is a lot of confusion about payjoin as a dual-funded tx and payjoin as the bip78 p2ep protocol. What do you think of listing CLN, BoS, and other dual funding, interactive-tx, or splicing software as Non-BIP78?
I’ve always thought the consumer/merchant paradigm was short sighted since, yes lightning wins vs on-chain for payments. I think it makes more sense for transfers between exchanges / funds especially because they’re so sensitive to the marginal costs of fees which can be minimized with the kind of batching networked interactions allow for.
send, receive https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/PayJoin_adoption