Dear Nostr users, would the ability to send and receive zaps via Liquid be of interest?
We're currently discussing with Amethyst devs on ways to make this possible.
Let us know in the comments! β‘οΈπView quoted note β
Thread
Login to reply
Replies ()
Yes
Yes Please!
You can already do this with @AQUA Wallet. I donβt think many do it cause the fees are too high for small amounts like most zaps are. Min send amount for Aqua is 1k sats because it doesnβt make any sense to send payments for less than that amount.
You canβt receive zaps via Aqua can you? Send, yes.
Yeah, but I have no idea whoβd want to do that. Min receive amount is 1k sats.
Who wouldnβt want to receive 1k sats? π The problem there isnβt Liquid, itβs people being cheap fucks when they zap. π
people would just think something is broken cause most of their zaps would fail. i mean they can build it if they want. i just think it would be a waste of time.
The problem is that self-custodial lightning is too complicated for the average person. Custodial lightning wallets are imposing limits on transactions and balances that make them increasingly unusable for content creators. That relegates lighting zaps to a play thing and I think we see that in peopleβs behavior, zapping only 21 sats here, 10 sats there. Itβs never going to be a serious competitor to other content platforms at that rate. Client UI can help people understand if sending a Liquid zap that a minimum amount of X is required. They can choose to send or not. I think it should be tried.
Liquid is too slow for zaps.
Right, arenβt blocks like 2 min?
I guess options are good, this doesnβt seem like a good fit
Unless they want to do it in a custodial wallet. Then it could be just as fast but still, people will have different setups and the experience will vary a lot.
Doesnβt liquid integrate with Lightning?
I donβt think natively.
Why too slow? Once sent, the sender doesnβt havenβt to worry about confirmation time and doesnβt need to remain online during the confirmation period.
Mostly through Boltz Exchange right now
Maybe you are right.
Things are already so confusing. Do we need a new type of zaps that donβt work for everyone?
We have Bolt12 headwinds coming anyway.
I like Blockstream, a lot. Itβs just Liquid isnβt happening.
Sounds like it could potentially be pretty powerful if Confidential Transactions can hide the amount of LBTC on a Lightning node.
This is how we make liquid happen.
Lightning got much more usage with Zaps because Nostr serves as a discoverable directory where people don't have to bother with manually sharing address for each individual transaction.
Self custodial lightning has proven itself so far to be a bad solution for tips on nostr, as much as every bitcoiner may wish the situation was different. Bolt12 doesnβt fix that because the receiving wallet still has to remain online to receive payments and still has to have adequate incoming liquidity. A mere handful of people in the world are going to bother dealing with that. Everyone else will continue to use custodial solutions. Liquid is proven and reliable especially when compared to other options like fedi and cashu. Maybe that will change over time, but for now I wouldnβt touch cashu/fedi zaps with a 10 foot pole for anything beyond small play amounts until theyβre more proven. Liquid isnβt perfect either, but itβs preferable to running and maintaining a lightning node.
I'm totally in your camp on this one - bring on something that can go big for future real things.
The problem is, that you right on every point. Yet I think the ship has sailed.
What ship? π
The shipcoin ship.
still loading
With all seriousness.
This is like HD-DVD and BlueRay. We chose BlueRay. Itβs very difficult to change now.
I donβt agree with that because lightning and liquid are interoperable. Much different situation than video formats. Being unable to receive payments while offline is a huge issue for Lightning. There is no winning solution for that issue yet, and the only viable solution so far, custodial Lightning, is becoming less available, not more. What will take its place?
I donβt know.
Custodial Bitcoin Vs Non-custodial Not Bitcoin. Hard choice really.
Why not advocate for mweb and zside Zcash orchard drivechain then it's non custodian with better privacy
I don't know. This issue is about compromises. and i dont think we settled on what is the best compromise.
Only tradeoff is they are optional lol
Both mweb and Zcash orchard drivechain give better privacy cheaply in a trustless non costodial manner
Garnet "zaps" Monero seemlessly. You see the balance incoming and simply wait for the confirmations. Liquid would be even quicker and will have none of the failed transaction issues that we deal with in lightning.
YES!!
Why not
I appreciate liquid and find it quite useful. Thank you! But given its typical transaction fee of ~260 sats and 1 min block time, how could it work with the small amount of a typical zap? Now if the functionaries also ran an ecash fediment, that would be very interesting!
Donβt be a cheap fuck and zap more. Thatβs how π
The idea would be to use @Boltz - Non-Custodial Bitcoin Bridge on the backend, which uses a lower sats/vBβ¦so tx fees would be ~40 sats, and liquid would only be available until a certain threshold would be met, say like 1000 sats.
Yes
I would like to have this option. Many of the custodial lightning wallets, which are the easiest to use, impose limits on how much you can receive per transaction and how much your total balance can be. The low limits they impose make them useful mostly only for fun/games, not for actual commerce purposes. Receiving zaps in liquid could allow for an easier self-custodial solution, and hopefully would not impose the same low transaction and balance restrictions. Please make this happen.
Not for me.
I like liquid for Tx privacy & as an alternative during times of timechain congestion.
Micro payments via liquid aren't really on my 'things to get excited about' list.
The ability to tip people in liquid if they specify a liquid address in their kind 0 profile similar to what is being done for Garnet would be a big benefit.
"cryptocurrency_addresses": {
"bitcoin": "bc1q02k5tkt5cvkwckt3geq7s4nz7arjk45rassexxp6y0v35u6d3sasssakjj",
"liquid": "Gpz6TrhzbbiqjJspJWp4qZgS1wgXaSqxfs",
"monero": "45Gg4fcAJoSYNSsXvXwPrzg1ji932tqgPVAZQaRAgTWHMQEUnCd23oggHsaXb4Z42EZz2dDBytFt3HeKPNhfccN7NbQTPba"
},
Is garnet the monero nostr jawn?
Garnet is a fork of Amethyst that supports tipping monero. It has a built in wallet, and looks for the monero field in the metadata as denoted above
So they left the Bitcoin tipping in right?
yes you can still do zaps
Of course it would be great
Yes, thatβd be #simplydebased
Lighting zaps are awesome for tipping and small payments.
Liquid will be usefull as more business transactions come in
For countries like Argentina sending USDT either as taproot on Lighting or over liquid would be awesome.
Integration with a debit card on NOSTR...epic
Seems kinda redundant now that we have lightning zaps imo
More zapping, less fees. Future proof. Yes please.
Any integration that helps diversify the use of bitcoin will be welcome. I use liquid
niiiiceβ‘β‘β‘β‘
Liquid Network γ Liquid Bitcoin γ Nostr γ§ζγγγγδ»η΅γΏγγ’γ‘γΈγιηΊθ
γγ‘γ¨εθ°γγ¦γγ£γ½γγγ’γ‘γΈγ« L-sats γ§ zap γ§γγζ₯γγγγγ??? (εδΊΊηγ« Liquid δ½Ώγγγγγ«γͺγγγ―ιεΈΈγ«γγγγγ)
Dear Nostr users, would the ability to send and receive zaps via Liquid be of interest?
We're currently discussing with Amethyst devs on ways to make this possible.
Let us know in the comments! β‘οΈπView quoted note β
View quoted note →
No, thanks. I use bitcoin (LN) for that.
For large transactions? I guess I don't see the use case.
Ecash work good to me. But i dont say no.
I have a bunch of sats in my AQUA wallet (self custodial). I'm filling up my Alby account, if necessary (custodial). That's my solution anyway. I wouldn't off course not sending 21 sats with a 200 sats fee.
I'd prefer a simple zap UX, to be honest:
- zap ecash if the recipient accepts it (NIP-60/61)
- zap Lightning sats otherwise (NIP-57)
π«
γγγ
I mean, yeah. But.. the fees on Liquid still make zaps uneconomical, a 160 sat fee on a zap won't work.
Aqua for instance is excellent, but the swaps needed to perform LN payments in the context of Zaps rules that out. Even native L-BTC "zaps" on Liquid onchain would still need at least 150+ sats per tx at 0.1 sat/vb min.
Only if you call them squirts
π€£
Yesssss π
Squirts. Yes π
Yes! π₯
π―
Would be cool if you could make interoperable like ecash. Receive liquid zaps as sats, ecash, or lzaps
Would possibly be the biggest innovation on nostr to date.
This would be Amazing!
Check out what we're doing with MiBanco to make the lightning address contain other currencies e.g. Liquid. Lightning is best, but the other methods can be great fallbacks for offline payments etc.
BancoLibre
BancoLibre
My lightning address swaps to Liquid, today.
The liquid address is there in the JSON response as well, so you can zap me with Liquid or Tether.
Yes, if you can get the fees down. I like Aqua wallet, but the fees just don't make sense for transactions less tha 2000 sats.
Aqua is very nice! I would love to have an ecash fedimint in there too. Imho, would like to be able to hide/disable on chain. My on chain is cold, not on hot mobile wallet. Have option to receive & send any source though (on chain, liquid, lightning, ecash), but funds at rest either liquid or ecash. Small amounts like zaps and pizza go ecash, larger amounts go from liquid. Sorry, but I still want fees generally less than 0.2%. Lightning for the rails between via things like boltz's awesome service. Only for really big amounts or funding/defunding liquid should one need to break out a cold wallet to move on chain utxos.
Any news on this? What implications would this have on privacy features of liquid. I'd imagine that the implementation would be nicer and more user friendly than Garnet's monero implementation, however I would be worried about privacy. While liquid hides transaction amount and asset type, it wouldnt hide the address the funds are sent to and that can be tracked up until you cash out or push to onchain.
π
Soooo....is this happening?
Dear Nostr users, would the ability to send and receive zaps via Liquid be of interest?
We're currently discussing with Amethyst devs on ways to make this possible.
Let us know in the comments! β‘οΈπView quoted note β
View quoted note →