BrantaPro

bitcoin

![](https://m.stacker.news/120189)

Core to the ethos of man is the right to privacy.

In the world of digitalization, privacy has increasingly been lost as walled platforms require users to accept a long list of terms and conditions to enter. Entrance to these platforms is typically free from a monetary perspective; however, users, in return, grant these corporations access to their digital activity.

The idea of privacy is borderline lost in today’s digital world.

The era of people who grew up using cash in a pre-digital world held some semblance of privacy to purchase because cash exchanges were peer-to-peer with no intermediary required to monitor and distribute funds.

Bitcoin brings back the cash ideology as it relates to the removal of intermediaries, and while Bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous in nature, we believe software that caters to privacy is a return to normalcy that should be championed.

Catering to the pressures of digitization and centralization creates a society where interactions are easily monitored, filtered, and tracked. These pressures set up a future where citizens have transactions blocked, traced, or limited in the event they attempt to purchase something deemed illicit or restricted.

These oversights undermine the backbone of the free market and remove the privatization of funds—a foundational right of Western Civilization and Liberty.

This is wrong.

Software has many powers to bring society into a further connected and modernized world, and these powers should come with the addition of personal freedom and privacy, not at the expense.

The future of platforms and big tech should be open-source and privacy-focused, not closed and data-harvesting.

Software should work as intended, all the while using only the minimal required information necessary to perform the desired function.

This type of construction is called “Zero-knowledge” (ZK) and lets one party (the prover) show another party (the verifier) that a statement is true without revealing any other personally identifiable information.

In the realm of digital finance, zero-knowledge design allows for digital payments to act in the same way as if you exchanged physical cash for a good or service. Under a ZK system, designated parties learn nothing about someone’s identity.

The way it should be.

ZK Proofs simply attest that a statement is true. In Branta’s case, that an address belongs to the recipient. All the ZK proofs do is verify that the transaction is valid.

Zero-knowledge software is a choice.

ZK is a choice that Branta has made and is proud to announce that Guardrail now offers Zero-knowledge verification. Plaintext verification is still available. As always, all data is purged after a given expiration, set by clients.

Branta now verifies that an intended wallet address is the correct address you should transmit your Bitcoin to, without ever seeing the plaintext address.

Building with Zero-knowledge in mind is a stake in the ground that freedom and privacy are values that mean something to a company, founder, and product.

Branta values freedom, privacy, and ushering in the world’s adoption of Bitcoin as a medium of exchange.

The less you know, the better when it comes to personal information—especially as it relates to transactions.

Privacy matters.

Sound money matters.

People deserve the freedom to have both.

Try Branta Today: https://www.branta.pro 

Branta Zero Knowledge Announcement

![](https://m.stacker.news/119224)

Companies like to release updates and build things for their customers. This is undeniable in the world of software. New features and upgrades are key reasons why customers stick around.

In the realm of payments, security, and antifragile systems, the idea of building everything in-house provides a paradox:

Everything being built in-house does not build trust; it actually removes trust and provides an opportunity for verification to be exploited at the expense of trust.

The only way to enhance verifiability without basing the verification on “trust” is by using external entities to deploy the verification test. This system of triangulated verification is time-tested and is actually how the world operates:

Supplement companies that want to tell athletes that they do not have banned substances rely on external testing facilities, most commonly NSF Certified for Sport®, to verify their claims.

No car manufacturer relies on internal data only when discussing how safe their vehicles are. They use external ranking systems to market how family-friendly their safety metrics are.

Athletes looking to make the jump from college to the pros go through standardized testing measurements with specific benchmarks in mind.

When you are paying someone new with Venmo, Venmo directs you to enter the last 4 digits of the recipient’s phone number to make sure you are paying the right person.

People don’t bring homemade identification to the airport; security requires a government-issued issued valid form of identification to proceed.

There are countless more examples in society where the method of verification used comes from an external source—not just another check within the same company or software stack.

The reasoning comes down to the fact that an external verifying source carries more weight than an internal vote of confidence. Any customer will always defer to an external review rather than an internal statement of truth.

Branta is the external reviewer for transactions. Branta verifies that the address you are intending to send Bitcoin to is, or isn’t, the address you are intending to send. Branta does this with no code injections, no logins, analytics, downloads, and unnecessary friction for your customer.

Branta aims to replace trust-based systems with the power of third-party verification. In the world of Bitcoin transactions, the list below presents scenarios that are trust-filled actions:

An exchange cannot verify that the address you see on your screen is a real address belonging to the same exchange

A merchant cannot verify that the address you see on your screen is a real address belonging to the same merchant.

By layering Branta into either of the above examples, there would be a method of triangulated security, ensuring that where you are sending bitcoin is truly where you intend it to go.

With the addition of another layer of security, customers and users can rely less on trust-based systems and act with more security, knowing they are replacing trust-based systems with verification-based practices. This methodology isn’t foreign to digital currencies. Multi-Sig Quorums and Multi-Institutional Custody options leverage this same underlying idea.

Adding fortified verification while not relying on trust should be the basic standard required. Branta is the extra layer of verification that is adjunct to any internal mechanisms that prioritize trust at the expense of verification.

Branta acts as an unbiased stamp of approval that allows customers, clients, and corporations to rest easy at night knowing their transactions are protected with an extra layer of security.

Branta is unopinionated and operates with the only goal to verify a transaction address is, or isn’t, what they say to be.

“Trusted third parties are security holes” only when trust is the basis. Third-party verification, which operates outside the bounds of trust-filled systems, makes your operations more antifragile.

You Can't Verify Yourself: Verifying Yourself is a Trust-Based Activity

AGORA

**Disclosure:** *[An earlier version of this post was published two days ago](https://stacker.news/items/1279723). It was withdrawn for revisions to improve clarity and accuracy.*

We've been building something at [Branta](https://branta.pro) called Guardrail…. Address verification for Bitcoin. The goal is simple: remove doubt from Bitcoin payments.

Guardrail lets a payer verify that a Bitcoin address on their screen belongs to the intended recipient. We’re using zero-knowledge verification for on-chain, so the payer can confirm authenticity without exposing the plaintext address (or invoice).

Businesses using Guardrail automatically [send the encrypted address to the Branta API (which expires after TTL seconds)](https://developer.branta.pro/guardrail-tech/api/v2/adding-payments/zero-knowledge) when they generate a new invoice.  Users can verify the address from any device.

Here are 2 demos:
[Demo 1](https://x.com/BrantaOps/status/1968017187257692661)
[Demo 2](https://x.com/unfakekeith/status/1986850641700925531)

Why? Because compromised screens, swapped addresses, man-in-the-middle-attacks, and bad browser extensions are currently undetectable . Guardrail aims to make “is this address legit?” a question anyone can answer deterministically.

Branta is already live as an API for merchants (e.g., BTCPay, Zaprite, others).

Wallet developers can integrate Branta into payment flows so users can verify any QR code or pasted address and display the result ("Verified" or "No verification available") before sending.

[Integration for wallets is seamless.](https://developer.branta.pro/guardrail-tech/api/v2/getting-payments) No coordination or permission from Branta is necessary.

We would love feedback, critique, skepticism, or to answer any questions.
Some things we're curious to hear your thoughts on:

- How useful would address verification be to you personally or for your users?
- Any red flags or attack surfaces you think a ZK-based approach might introduce?
- How could this integrate naturally into wallet UX without adding friction?

Thanks in advance.


Branta's Approach To Bitcoin Payment Address Verification: Triangulated Security

deleted by author

BITCOIN REMOVES TRUST FROM MONEY
BRANTA REMOVES TRUST FROM PAYMENTS

https://branta.pro/