I appreciate the debate. And I hope someone creates a silent payment implementation that can actually work and don't just defer privacy to a trusted monitor provider.

Hi I'm one of silent payments implementers, don't hesitate to ping me if you want to have a chat and try to figure it out. Doing more address reuse is *not* acceptable at this point.

@Gzuuus @jb55 @cloud fodder @ChipTuner @Gigi @semisol @Enki @MichaelJ @Cody I'm actually kind of, sort of, low-key interested in on-chain _private_ zaps that don't suck and don't look like a government surveillance wet dream. Especially if clients were clever about it and used addresses from kind 10133 payment target events or w-tags on profiles (so, opt-in!) and recommended Lightning vs on-chain, depending upon the amount sent? Do we have a working group for that, to come up with a NIP for it, so that client devs like me can implement them? I don't know, if the tech is there, yet, but we could at least get a band together or something. Do any of you know of anyone working on this, that I didn't tag? Or does anyone want to just reply here and suggest themselves? 🙋🏻‍♂️ @Vitor Pamplona would you be interested in offering that as an alternative for your users, or even maybe as the default, if we got it to work?

Legend.

Let's do it.. send a NIP on which way to do it that actually works. Right now a bunch of people are talking but nobody is doing shit. We need actual proposals/implementations from people that know what they are talking about.

I feel like it's worth mentioning that discussions on "it shouldn't be built because it can be used badly" is rarely a convincing argument. Vitor is right though, so long as we hold a secret key tied to a _public_ key it could always be used by some blockchain or whatever crypto technology to "send" money as we know it's just an identifier signed by the sender. None of us can stop that. Address reuse is bad for privacy yes. I think we'd be better off building a case for deniability, when we simply don't touch the funds. We can't control what others do, if they send funds to the address, which is public, the utxoset can be scanned. It can be public knowledge that I deny the funds, by not moving them. I'd think privacy is just as bad for senders in this regard.