Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation, but there seems to be a whole lot of worry about a few maybe subdust UTXOs. Is it ideal that one should receive 121 sats onchain? Of course not. Will it break Bitcoin? I don't think so. It's not like Nostr is being used by millions of people who all of a sudden are going to start zapping like there's no tomorrow, right?
I might be missing something here but I just don't get it, even if these were "attacks" meant to force unknowing people to transfer these tiny UTXOs and thus reveal the true nature of their Bitcoin wealth, who's actuality using their nsec as a private key?
Replies (5)
onchain zaps don’t need to be tied to an npub. You can do onchain zaps via silent payments (this is the proper way to do it, not the retarded current spec)
We can discourage people using dust amounts by automatically choosing lightning zaps for small amounts and onchain zaps over a certain limit.
I see onchain zaps to be useful for commerce and other things. It’s all how we design these systems.
we are testing silent payments already.. coming up
we can actually tie them for the owner of the nsec only.. the public can compute a silent payment address and send BTC to anyone without having that person setup an SP wallet. For the public, it will just be a new UTXO for each zap.
How about I make an Ark payment to a key X, where X is some (SP-)tweaked version of your public key
So then I can zap you a small (SP) payment by sending you the relevant Ark data
If you don't claim the data, perhaps because the Nostr hint is lost, perhaps we can include a timelock that allows me to reclaim after a month
Doxxing the scan key undermines the raison d'être of SP.
