pull down to refresh
I think some of the argument is that lightning is hard to get started for a newbie -- setting up a channel requires some amount of sats already, but if you do this npub->taproot address thing, you just sign up to nostr (create a keypair) and start receiving. I see the allure.
The flow you describe probably works, but isn't it still a really big foot-gun? In a way these sats would be even worse than kyc sats because the identity attached to them is trivially identifiable to the whole world. That seems like it's pretty radioactive.
And, like you say, why not just use lightning? If the primary use-case is newbies or nocoiners, then we can't expect them to be hyper-privacy conscious and careful. Maybe they move some of these sats into a wallet and forget how they got them and then later get serious about bitcoin and build a stack in that wallet. without thinking about where their initial sats came from. I could see many ways this goes badly.
Zeus imo has the right idea. Newbies use an ecash wallet until they have enough to open a lightning channel. Then they get the lightning channel through the LSP then they move on-chain when they have enough that they can't or don't want to keep in lightning.
Lightning is relatively easy in this way... I think the harder issue believe it or not is talking about bitcoin with people to begin with they don't 'get' it or why its necessary.
On-chain SATs I agree with you is not for beginners, that's what lightning is for. I think that newbies would have a hard time with the 6 confirmations thing... They would expect lightning to be instant like anything else they use so they wouldn't know what on-chain was or what not to do. DerGigi has a great point there imo
if you do this npub->taproot address thing, you just sign up to nostr (create a keypair) and start receiving. I see the allure.
To quote Calle:
You're done.
- set
<your npub>@npub.cashas your Lightning address- set up a cashu.me wallet and login with your nsec (or signer)
Clients could set this up automatically, of course. Same principle, without the footguns.
I read the whole write up and let me play the devil's advocate.
On-chain zaps if used with a wallet like wasabi could be a net positive for bitcoin. Its not like fees are that high. And after the zaps are conjoined they could be swapped to lightning, used to open a lightning channel, spent on something, sent to a satscard, or possibly just donated to a nonprofit or internet-freedom group (open source developers). They wouldnt go anywhere near your 'main stack' and now that the use of sub-1-sat vbyte transactions is common...
Even relatively small amouts of dust could be trivial to spend/conjoin or consolidate.
I personally would donate a small on-chain zap... Like small change in a physical wallet to good causes. Or let that dust 'build up' before sending it to a swap service, or swapping it to lightning which has enormous privacy benefits.
In short I don't think on-chain zaps are a "good" idea... They probably aren't for everyone. But for an advanced user they open up the possibilities for how and when to use bitcoin.
I think the bigger question is... And as far as on-chain goes... I want to know why exactly we need on-chain zaps to begin with. Lightning is mature enough to accept relatively large transactions (most zaps are under 100 sats anyway) its much cheaper and near-instant. Maybe we could make the argument that its good for the fee market but probably the better thing is... More people opening lightning channels which is good for the fee market.
I'm open to this idea but I see it as a tool to make coinjoins easier and more relevant... If I only received one zap a month it wouldnt even be worth it I would just donate it. But on the other hand built into something like wasabi or joinmarket I could see it being useful.