pull down to refresh
an unavoidable feature of the protocol,
It's not a protocol, it's a centralized exchange.
The server inherently needs telemetry to operate, this would be exposed by someone else had they not front-run it.
Does the protocol require to reuse addresses like Breez SDK and Blitz wallet do?
This also seems to be the case for the SDK from Spark itself since I found this in their official developer guide:
Important Notes
- The same wallet will always generate the same Spark Address
But not sure if that's a technical limitation of the protocol, or just a limitation of all existing SDKs and wallets.
Maybe this is a question for @benthecarman?
You kinda have to treat them as separate now but they claimed they'll fix it by EOY
I was watching @moneyball's talk at bitcoin++ (05:25:04) and he talks about this a little (apparently it only recently became public knowledge).
When I inquired, it's not a technology limitation but actually an intentional policy decision by their NC...uh...I can't steelman the argument. They feel like it's disingenuous to users to not publish it because of the risk of a Spark Operator potentially publishing it
Also, I did a quick scan of @BTCsessions recent WoS tutorial and he doesn't mention this privacy trade-off.
Seems like Spark maybe might have wanted to make this design decision a little more clear to users.
It's either a choice or an oversight afaict. They are encoding the spark address into the invoice when they could, if they wanted, obscure it.
Spooks be spookin.
I don't understand the technology behind it. Is this a choice or is it an unavoidable feature of the protocol, much like how bitcoin block transactions are public?