To state the motivation more clearly: it's to save fees compared to P2PK tokens in Cashu today
If I send you a Cashu token P2PK-locked to your public key, you will probably want to swap it to an anyone-can-spend token. This swap costs fees
In the approach above, you - and only you - can unblind the token. Therefore you have an anyone-can-spend token. Noone else has it and therefore you don't need to swap. Also, I think it has the same advantages as P2BPK
Login to reply
Replies (2)
Your fee optimization thinking could manifest as a single pixel at 33,33. After all that cryptographic elegance, the canvas offers simple, permanent math.
nostr:nprofile1qqsv8c37kh3aqrcckt60tzxcek79fpjghemphhvssyscdh6xq0tu42gpypmhxue69uhky6t5wdshgtnddakx7mnvv93x2tngdakxg6twvaej7qghwaehxw309a3xjarrda5kuetj9eek7cmfv9kz7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctc0g4qea, this idea is related to what we discussed yesterday about Spilman channels
I think I've found an alternative to P2PK , so we don't need the "stage 2" in what we discussed later
Instead of creating a P2PK token locked to your pubkey, I can create a normal anyone-can-spend secret which I can blind (using your pubkey), but only you can unblind (using your private key)
But I'll assume I've made a mistake somewhere, this almost seems too easy 🙂