Sosthene_

"572bb880c2bc3bd5a975381a4d6918655e29d8b0745e13eacc692da8a6ce8c69b8028b04394db01c0dc4bea955c63b2c996d34eee35d10e42050616225cc0043"

Last Notes

2026-08-04 16:59:51 UTC

- reply

Thanks, I was asking because reyify appears to be down (temporarily I hope), and archive.org doesn't have much it seems

2026-08-04 16:23:07 UTC

@nprofile…sqyj I'm looking for old joinmarket blog articles but it looks like the domain has been taken down, are the archives still accessible somewhere? Thanks !

2026-06-10 15:15:48 UTC

- reply

Objection, that's not even from the ps2 era, more like early 90's
(Nice nonetheless)

2026-06-04 11:33:39 UTC

I just caught up on nostr silent payment adresses, glad to see people actively exploring the idea. I think it would be *a lot* better than any other proposals that reuses addresses.
It would be even better to have the silent payment wallet generated separately and simply linked to your nostr account because as the NIP author correctly assessed tightly linking your nostr identity and your payment code means leaking one also leak the other. But if being able to generate the silent payment code directly from the npub is hard requirements then yes please do that instead of treating the npub as a taproot key...
A few other thought:
* frigate is indeed out of question (see above), and author doesn't seem aware there is an alternative called blindbit that serves the tweaks and let client do the scanning itself
* I don't think that immediately sweeping all incoming transactions to a new address is necessary
* out of band notification of the transaction is possible, but there's also a proposal for notifications over nostr: https://gist.github.com/setavenger/a0cd7e71b47ded9fca9c99085130cf2a
* even without notification waiting for the transaction being mined is probably acceptable for a donation use case
I'm not sure I get the argument about recipient leaking his private scanning key being such a big danger for senders, it literally doesn't reveal anything else that you couldn't already figure out by chain analysis.
What would be great would be to have some kind of payjoin baked in to add some obfuscation, but I'm not sure how practical it would be.
@nprofile…46gd I've seen you're implementing BIP375 in Ditto, we're a couple of sp implementers working on bringing that to rust-bitcoin too, and I think that people at bitcoinjs-lib are working on that too, I think at some point we'd better all take a look at what we're doing

2026-06-04 08:52:05 UTC

- reply

It may be a foot gun, but doint address reuse instead is like going "fuck it I'd rather shoot myself in the head right away"

2026-06-04 08:50:43 UTC

- reply

I think that's unfortunate there is so much confusion about what silent payments is and what it can/can't do. It's about making address reuse not only undesirable but outright *impossible*, and doing it with good UX otherwise it won't catch up.
What it's not doing is magically making you immune to other chain analysis heuristics, spyware, surveillance etc.
That may sound underwhelming but address reuse is the one, single worst offender about bitcoin privacy. Solving that is maybe not enough, but it's absolutely necessary if we want to achieve acceptable privacy at some point.
We will still need some kind of coin history obfuscation, something like coinjoins. And also getting people out of exchanges and other KYC services would help a lot.
As for the scanning server seeing your outputs, it's exactly the same privacy model as electrum, and the good thing is that you have the choice, you can use another wallet that relies on blindbit like @nprofile…39uj, scanning happens client side so slightly more bandwidth/cpu cost for you, but the server doesn't learn anything.

2026-05-26 21:36:10 UTC

- reply

No. They use leaked data from multiple recent data breaches, including government services, or outright buy data from rogue elements in tax services or law enforcement. That's something new, even low profile people with decent opsec are targeted.

2026-05-21 16:37:46 UTC

- reply

That would be fun if we didn't already know the result would be "it doesn't work, so we need to double down on it"

2026-05-21 09:57:24 UTC

- reply

Pas d'inquiétude, un jour nous reviendrons dans le monde physique
https://image.nostr.build/022afc585cf34695d430513d9b5f1e60c5b686faa93008c5a44a05c24cff2b4e.jpg

2026-05-20 08:39:26 UTC

- reply

I don't need to imagine that

2026-05-19 15:21:47 UTC

- reply

Slight disagreement on "banks hate this as much as we do". If that's the case they are all very chill about that, because they didn't lobby against nor ever contested any tightening in that fucking nightmare in recent history.
The truth is, you believe you're the bank client, but you haven't been for some time now. That's not with your deposit that the bank earn money, you can go to another one they don't care, and the service likely sucks as bad anyway.

2026-05-19 15:14:43 UTC

- reply

"Deal in cash with the bank" might not be possible depending where you live. In France most banks will simply kick you out if you're making 2000€ deposits in cash every month, some don't even allow cash deposit at all

2026-05-19 13:42:27 UTC

- reply

Multiple exchanges, multiple bank accounts, p2p as much as possible... But that's indeed extremely annoying.

2026-05-18 08:18:20 UTC

- reply

That's regrettable, but I assume they are doing what they can and have other concerns now. I won't blame them, just help them do differently if I can

2026-05-18 07:22:09 UTC

- reply

No wait he's got a point https://image.nostr.build/089d2d97f8609c32040a5cac953481e835df95f46552bd6f6abc5352f9155b9c.jpg

2026-05-18 07:11:23 UTC

- reply

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.