Last Notes
Vitor, you're a smart man. How you continue to not get the difference is beyond me.
Onchain is transparent. You can not deny that you have received funds. You can not deny that you have moved them after you received them. If you still use your nsec after receival you can't even deny that you have the capability to move them.
Am I taking crazy pills?
GM https://haven.dergigi.com/f60d50222510785f9a7d2207879e9b790856d438f5774c40852a515fb3203cc6.jpg
"the fact that you're familiar with something doesn't mean that you understand it deeply"
Solid writeup: #nevent1q…lmsr
Why should he, it's sloppypasta by definition. https://stopsloppypasta.ai/en/
Your nsec can roleplay as the privatekey of a bitcoin wallet. Some devs want to use this so that you can send and receive money ("on-chain zaps") without having to jump through any wallet setup hoops. There's issues with this for privacy, security, and a multitude of other reasons. The idea is okay in principle and similar to nutzaps, but the forever footprint of this "solution" and the 2nd and 3rd order implications of forcing users to deal with onchain shenanigans is problematic, to put it mildly.
petition to call on-chain zaps "shrimps" https://haven.dergigi.com/1b9ccec14d7cd0ea1bca5f504db3b4b8bc7a5adb411e83f778d12bc97e5ae22d.jpg
In addition, address reuse is bad for everyone else on the network (because it decreases the anonymity set). #nevent1q…5a7y
Zaps don't promote on-chain address reuse. Are you even trying to understand what I'm saying?
Anyway, I know that you're gonna ship it anyway but this is too important for me to just shut up about. I hope that a more sane approach will win in the end. Silent Payments, for example. I'll go touch grass now.
It matters. It matters a lot. Providing and normalizing the use of long-term footguns is not the way. Building stuff that actively harms the privacy of all on-chain users (that's what address reuse does, remember?) is not the way.
Sure, it's an obvious thing to build.
Yes, that's one of my concerns. It's almost impossible to educate users on the dangers of on-chain privacy implications. #nevent1q…ssrd
Plenty of people have a lightning address that isn't theirs as their zap target.
mood https://haven.dergigi.com/6337b65f15218a87756cc42c7eacf07e5bc79d342d5e7cedcce495f463e3f9d6.gif
I won't challenge you on the first part, but saying that address reuse onchain zaps are "a million times better than Lightning" is a wild thing to say. It's also wrong.
Ok. Once more for the people in the back: Address reuse is really really really really (really) bad. Don't encourage it. It destroys the privacy of everyone.
Time is a flat circle. https://github.com/jlopp/physical-bitcoin-attacks
Plausible deniability is important. This removes it. You didn't address the address reuse issue. It's a massive issue. Keep in mind that I'm an advocate for both nutzaps and the marriage of silent payments and nostr.
mood https://haven.dergigi.com/7c93e931904a0e75155ee12683a18530549c34bd233b578b8c2cf401506c601d.mp4
Users should have the option to decouple money and identity. Address reuse is actively harmful for the entire network. Users can't opt out. Users have no way of denying that they received money. I could go on...
Separate discussion entirely. Current proposal is to turn any npub into a single publicly known onchain address, which encourages address reuse and makes it impossible to decouple identity from money. You can't opt out of it either.
Terrible idea. Harmful concept. Users will get rekt, attacked, or worse. Do better.
#nevent1q…clpr
That won't help those who'll get rekt by this "feature"
What users?
#nevent1q…e5nh
Onchain is forever, and forever is a long time.
nothing wrong with a little self-love from time to time
To make an educated decision you need to be educated in the first place. Most users are uneducated when it comes to the nuances of on-chain privacy. It's a difficult topic, and the software we build shouldn't make it easier for users to damage themselves, but harder.
Address reuse is a big problem as it is already. Let's not make it worse.
#nevent1q…5a7y
Address reuse is bad. The fact that open-source developers are currently behind bars is atrocious. Both can be true.
there is a way to do this "properly" but just deriving an address from an nsec is not it. Some prior work:
https://gist.github.com/BoltTouring/dde944661df330ec5119af8ef94159e1
https://gist.github.com/BoltTouring/5376f9cf02b6949252cd17c2f41b453f
"on-chain zaps" are a bad idea and have the potential to be actively harmful when implemented naively
You can put a silent payment address into your profile info using the "sp" field. Jumble supports it, some other clients too. https://gist.github.com/BoltTouring/5376f9cf02b6949252cd17c2f41b453f
> all women converging to Kim Kardashian
https://haven.dergigi.com/079f7547b91ca0c439e73e4071363720ebd1eab9fdfd38fbc53a882315e5c63a.gif
Grug brain is best brain. https://sovereignengineering.io/images/nosolutions-cover.jpg
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should"
#nevent1q…x8rn
Especially if the thing is on-chain zaps. Don't tell anyone. Don't even think. Don't entertain whether it's a good idea or not. Just ship it.
"Address reuse harms the privacy of not only yourself, but also others"
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address_reuse
We forgot about serious play. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxvB1_t03I
It is. Also: https://haven.sovereignengineering.io/5c534684d544b519bbb09cc126ac0095f093949498091ca818a55baee26e0e44.png
https://dergigi.com/2026/03/20/the-internet-left-me/
say what you will but "mini shai-hulud" is a great name for a worm
mood https://haven.dergigi.com/aed06cebb0530dcc2d766826af0b39f853df1c3390ee44da53c786e8bfc9e9e4.jpg
