I just explained how your design lets a payjoin sender could drain the receiver's wallet. Do some research before spreading misinformation: "In exchange for the privacy benefit, the sender has to pay more fees than a normal transaction. It is a con for the sender, but a pro for the receiver, since the receiver does not have to consolidate its coin later." - @nopara73 (coinventor of payjoin) https://nopara73.medium.com/pay-to-endpoint-56eb05d3cac6

Replies (2)

JackTheMimic's avatar
JackTheMimic 2 months ago
That is not a given, the reciever can obviously include fees in their input. I don't why you feel like you can talk to me like a whiney little cunt but, it's becoming pretty annoying, especially since you continue to be incorrect. I have done an asynchronous payjoin using my own server PAYING THE FEE as a receiver. So, please shut up, thanks.
No, this is Nostr, so I don't have to shut up about you being wrong. Payjoins are larger than normal transactions, get over it.