> So please redirect your private-key-sharing rage to the au...

SatsAndSports

npub1zthq85gksjsjthv8h6rec2qeqs2mu0emrm9xknkhgw7hfl7csrnq6wxm56

hex

d340c8cd43bac0c2840b42632bd7b1ef5387c0c5bec1004845ede98eafc220d0

nevent

nevent1qqsdxsxge4pm4sxzss95ycet67c775u8crzmasgqfpz7m6vw4lpzp5qprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsp9msr6ytgfgf9mkrmapuu9qvsg9d78ua3ajntfmt580t5llvgpesgt5h3z

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-05-29T16:24:25Z

↳ Reply to Event not found

7bda7f5dff5900cfbd8d6b52787ed7c5f28c3b8a876c2331138f5f534f5c9da7...

So please redirect your private-key-sharing rage to the authors of BIP352 who introduced the concept in the first place.

This is not a valid complaint Tim. You can't blame the authors of BIP352 for this

In the conventional usage of BIP352, the recipient generates both keys separately. They might choose to share one of those keys with a third party scanning service

That's cool. It simplifies things for the recipient, by allowing the third party to see all the transactions

The problem with your proposal is that, if the scan key is shared with a third-party scanning service, that service can also steal the funds

Your proposal has certain pros and cons, like every proposal. And that's fine, you are free to promote your idea. But it's not appropriate for you to deflect by blaming the authors of BIP352 for flaws introduced by you

Raw JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "d340c8cd43bac0c2840b42632bd7b1ef5387c0c5bec1004845ede98eafc220d0",
  "pubkey": "12ee03d11684a125dd87be879c28190415be3f3b1eca6b4ed743bd74ffd880e6",
  "created_at": 1780071865,
  "tags": [
    [
      "alt",
      "A short note: \u003e So please redirect your private-key-sharing rage..."
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "927ae00d58ff09ffff85536edd6e872bc32147ce5383adb9594e69598252cbcb",
      "wss://relay.primal.net/",
      "root",
      "06b7819d7f1c7f5472118266ed7bca8785dceae09e36ea3a4af665c6d1d8327c"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "7bda7f5dff5900cfbd8d6b52787ed7c5f28c3b8a876c2331138f5f534f5c9da7",
      "wss://relay.primal.net/",
      "reply",
      "32e1827635450ebb3c5a7d12c1f8e7b2b514439ac10a67eef3d9fd9c5c68e245"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "06b7819d7f1c7f5472118266ed7bca8785dceae09e36ea3a4af665c6d1d8327c",
      "wss://relay.getsafebox.app/"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "32e1827635450ebb3c5a7d12c1f8e7b2b514439ac10a67eef3d9fd9c5c68e245",
      "ws://relay.jb55.com/"
    ],
    [
      "client",
      "Amethyst"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "\u003e So please redirect your private-key-sharing rage to the authors of BIP352 who introduced the concept in the first place.\n\n\nThis is not a valid complaint Tim. You can't blame the authors of BIP352 for this\n\nIn the conventional usage of BIP352, the recipient generates both keys separately. They *might* choose to share *one* of those keys with a third party scanning service\n\nThat's cool. It simplifies things for the recipient, by allowing the third party to see all the transactions\n\nThe problem with your proposal is that, if the scan key is shared with a third-party scanning service, that service can also steal the funds\n\nYour proposal has certain pros and cons, like every proposal. And that's fine, you are free to promote your idea. But it's not appropriate for you to deflect by blaming the authors of BIP352 for flaws introduced by you",
  "sig": "56270935fbd547de44c264356f9bb89df2c33e662ebbbeefaee47913433b508ea71f41235d8ec906ee18462fff81696180040e37bc2ae4b6c2aaf8a911595505"
}