View quoted note →
Zaps are a privacy disaster.
Cypherpunks want to signal support, too, but adversaries take note so we are in that dilemma: How can we appeal to the instinct of others to imitate role models in terms of giving money to causes we support if we can't show that money is given because the bullies come to rob it at the sender and the recipient? Whale-zap and get bullied. Get thousands to zap a creator and he gets bullied.
Zaps are very non-private at least the way they are done right now. The nips exist to privately zap but then, what's the point? People already can pay sats to the exposed LN addresses and by hiding the sender but not the recipient, the recipient still gets bullied.
At least with zaps that don't reveal an on-chain address, the recipient has plausible deniability about having spent the funds but there are bullies that go after even temporary holders of sats, putting the burden of proof on the recipient. (The recipient would even have somewhat plausible deniability about funds received as the zap is just a receipt and as such, a strong suggestion of a payment but not a physical proof.)
With on-chain zaps there is no hiding or denying for the recipient. He can claim to not know about the funds as long as he doesn't move them and enact a private key leak boating accident in which he leaks his nsec but with every on-chain zap that isn't moved out of his address, the incentive to hack his nsec increases.
Gradient descent is stupid. I will die on this hill, too.
I intend to run instances of several open source tools in the nostr.info context, both to fix them for myself but also for your convenience when things like Habla and Badges vanish because 