Avatar
Let there be light…
dc31dcff51ffff8ae01ac016fc7e74431939085b932350d69a781fe90aa5ae67

Bull Bitcoin becomes the first mobile Bitcoin wallet that allows users to send and receive asynchronous Payjoin transactions without needing to run their own server, using BIP77!

I am very excited about this new and bleeding-edge feature, because it has been a long-standing ambition of Bull Bitcoin to become the first Bitcoin exchange to process Bitcoin withdrawals via Payjoin (Pay-to-Endpoint) transactions.

However, it was hard to justify Bull Bitcoin investing time into building this feature since there were no commercially available end-user Bitcoin wallets that were able to receive Payjoin payments.

Indeed, in order to receive Payjoin payments (BIP78), a Bitcoin wallet needed to be connected to a full node server and be online at the moment the payment is made. This means in practice that only merchants, professional service providers and advanced full node users had the capacity to receive Payjoin payments. This is, we believe, one of the major reasons why Payjoin had failed to gain significant traction among Bitcoin users.

For this reason, the Payjoin V2 protocol (BIP77) was conceived and developed by Dan Gould, as part of the Payjoin Dev Kit project, to outsource the receiver's requirement to run his own server to an untrusted third-party server called the Payjoin Directory. In order to prevent the server from spying on users, the information is encrypted and relayed to the Payjoin Directory via an Oblivious HTTP server.

Bull Bitcoin’s Payjoin ambitions had been put on hold since 2020, until there was more adoption of Payjoin receiving capabilities among end-user Bitcoin wallets…

But it turns out that in the meanwhile, Bull Bitcoin developed its own mobile Bitcoin wallet. And it also turns out that the open-source Bitcoin development firm Let There Be Lightning, which we had collaborated with in the past, had itself collaborated with Dan to build a software library for Payjoin that was compatible with and relatively straightforward to integrate into our own wallet software. All that was missing was to put the pieces together into a finished product.

Thanks to the collaborative open source effort of the Payjoin Dev Kit team, Let There Be Lightning team and the Bull Bitcoin team, the Bull Bitcoin wallet has now become the first commercially available end-user mobile wallet on the Google Play store to implement the BIP 77 Payjoin V2 protocol.

Moreover, the Bull Bitcoin wallet has also implemented asynchronous Payjoin payments, which means that a Payjoin transaction can be “paused” until the receiver or the sender come back online. This way, the receiver's mobile phone can be “turned off” when the sender makes the payment. As soon as the recipient’s phone is turned back on, the Payjoin session will resume and the recipient will receive the payment. This is a major breakthrough in the mobile Payjoin user experience.

We would like to thank the Human Rights Foundation for allocating a generous bounty for the development of a Serverless Payjoin protocol and its implementation in a mobile Bitcoin wallet, as well as OpenSats and Spiral for supporting the work of Payjoin Dev Kit, which made this all possible.

Why does this matter?

Payjoin, also known as Pay-to-endpoint, is a protocol which allows the Bitcoin wallet of a payments receiver and the Bitcoin wallet a payments sender to communicate with each other for the purpose of collaborating on creating a Bitcoin transaction.

I first heard about Payjoin (then called Pay-to-endpoint) in 2018 and it completely blew my mind. What I liked most about it was that it was not a protocol change to Bitcoin, but rather it was an application-layer protocol that allows wallets to communicate in order to create smarter and more efficient Bitcoin transactions.

Whereas in a normal Bitcoin payment the transaction is created by the sender, and all the inputs of that transaction belong to the sender, in a Payjoin payment both the sender and the receiver contribute coins as inputs.

In the Bitcoin whitepaper, Satoshi wrote:

"some linking is still unavoidable with multi-input transactions, which necessarily reveal that their inputs were owned by the same owner"

With Payjoin, this assumption is no longer true. With Payjoin, we have fixed one of Bitcoin’s most fundamental privacy problems... without changing the Bitcoin protocol!

In a Payjoin transaction, the output amounts visible on the blockchain does not necessarily reflect the value of the payment that was actually exchanged. In other words, you can’t easily tell how much money one wallet sent to the other. This is great for users that are concerned a malicious third party may be attempting to obtain sensitive information about their finances without their consent. This does not however pose an accounting problem for the Bitcoin wallets involved in that transaction: since both wallets are aware of which coins they used as inputs and outputs, they are independently able to calculate the "actual" value of the payment that was sent even if the payment on the blockchain appears to be a of a different amount.

Payjoin breaks the common input ownership heuristic, an assumption used by hackers and fraudsters to track ownership of addresses on the blockchain. The neat thing about this property of Payjoin is that it benefits everyone on the network, not just the Payjoin users themselves.

It allows the receiver of a payment to opportunistically consolidate his utxos when he is receiving funds, in a way which does not necessarily appear to be a consolidation transaction on the blockchain. Depending on the configuration of a payment transaction, it can also make a regular payment look like a consolidation.

In addition to these benefits, the introduction of collaborative peer-to-peer transaction protocols opens up exciting opportunities for the creation of Lightning Network channels, as well as efficiencies for transaction batching.

How to use Payjoin in the Bull Bitcoin wallet:

It’s so seamless, you may not even realize you are using it!

To receive via Payjoin, simply navigate to the “Receive tab” using the network “Bitcoin” and you will see a Payjoin invoice. When you want to get paid, send this invoice to the payer, or show them the QR code. If the sender’s wallet is compatible with Payjoin, it will be up to the sender to decide whether or not they want to use Payjoin.

To send via Payjoin, simply paste the receiver's Payjoin invoice, or scan the associated QR code, in the Bull Bitcoin wallet. If you decide that you don’t want to pay with Payjoin, simply turn off the Payjoin toggle.

Original post: https://www.bullbitcoin.com/blog/bull-bitcoin-wallet-payjoin

Download the wallet: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bullbitcoin.mobile&hl=en-IN

Will the wallet become available on iOS?

Replying to Avatar Travis West

All of this FEMA talk in socials reminds me of when I tried to trespass FEMA from a whole city once.

Story time:

FEMA came to my local city, which I am a councilman for, with updated flood zones mapped out and they requested the city join their national flood insurance program. This was earlier this year or last year, I can't quite remember when exactly.

The program allows building owners in the flood zone to buy "federal" flood insurance.

Sounds innocent, but the program also provides the city with a specific ordinance that the city MUST pass. The ordinance requires the flood insurance in the flood zone for any permits, and possibly for any federally-backed mortgages IIRC, and it requires the city to enforce it. So the city has to force folks in the flood zone to buy insurance.

And if the city didn't join the program, there would be consequences:

The city would be ineligible for FEMA assistance in the event of a disaster. New mortgages for buildings in the floodzone would no longer be able to use federally-backed loans ( ! ). And the city would no longer be eligible to receive federal grant money (cities get a lot of this, our money is broken).

I viewed this as the federal government forcing an ordinance on me and my local citizens that we don't want. It was the feds saying, "Do this or you don't get the millions of dollars that your city takes from us via grants."

I even went to an open house that FEMA put on about this issue and I asked why individual property owners couldn't just join the program voluntarily, why does the entire city need to do it and force the insurance on people. The people there weren't the people who could change anything, so it wasn't useful.

Flood insurance, in my opinion, should matter to three parties, none of which is the federal government: The building/homeowner, the bank/person behind the mortgage, and the insurance company insuring the home.

I voiced my concerns about this program and I suggested the program was unethical in its implementation. I urged a no vote and recommended the city trespass FEMA personnel from all city property to send a message to them. Then when (or if) the feds follow through with denying federal funds to the city, we get senators and local media involved.

Because federal grant money and federally-backed mortgages were being held hostage, the city council voted to join the program, with me being the only no vote. Even the other councilmen acknowledged just prior to the vote that they felt they were being forced and didn't have a real choice. Costs and regulations are so burdensome nowadays that small cities rely a ton on grant money. I hate it.

Oh, and by the way, this is probably something every city in the nation with even the smallest part of it in a flood zone faces. So if you live within a city, might be worth checking in and seeing how they handled this.

Now that it is on my mind again, I suppose the city could still trespass FEMA personnel. An item for next month's agenda. LFG!

Stay frosty out there.

When will we learn to stop believing in and depending on the Federal Government for anything???