The cause for concern on this issue/problem with on-chain za...

Raw JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "c513c727e15792377f832414ac4722d1a50cdaff8f7088f746e07edc1b914f0c",
  "pubkey": "3875a16c978814346640ccf1c169ade71086cfdd1a2b904f46ad6591988456c9",
  "created_at": 1779369718,
  "tags": [
    [
      "e",
      "c4571c5c9adb682d8c4bf12a1f795d53f6e2400512f5a12e598ca6ae36134030",
      "",
      "mention"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "6e468422dfb74a5738702a8823b9b28168abab8655faacb6853cd0ee15deee93",
      "",
      "mention"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "The cause for concern on this issue/problem with on-chain zaps that Gigi lays out here is crystal clear to me in his writeup.\n\nSharing my thought stream here, internal dialogue of you will:\n\nMade me think if Alex and Vitor didnt do this, would someone else have? Someone else surely would have because it’s possible to do on nostr, and if something is possible, eventually, someone will do it. Apparently this is impossible to stop/mitigate at the protocol level in its current state. So at best, I think from a naive perspective, it’s the clients that can do something about this being acceptable behavior. But even then, anybody could create a fringe client using nostr and just do it anyway. This is a privacy design hole with the protocol. Maybe if nostr keys were derived using formats not compatible with bitcoin? Now I’m venturing into places where my foundation is very shaky so I think I’ll stop here. This is fucked up.\nnostr:nevent1qqsvg4cutjddk6pd339lz2sl09w48ahzgqz39adp9evcef4wxcf5qvq6x5urt",
  "sig": "eea94f29107f5c1fa2bc6a37b51ae0a39cc4b5136aee42c869b4f4cff8ca79186431e1124630472c16cd8c70db2ae65bc685e9888e98057fd02474df40be0da7"
}