When you say 'fragmentation' are you referring to coin fragmentation or fragmentation of the bitcoin network effect? I'm not sure I see this as an issue here, but am open to being educated.
I do understand where you're coming from regarding the counterparty risks. But I tend to think new use cases are borne from places where we least expect so live and let live (or, if the experiment fails, live and let die). Anyway, who am I to tell someone else what services they should or shouldn't include in their app? If the counterparty risk is a concern for me I can simply choose not to use it.
(Also, I don't think OPA is built on nostr? I could be wrong.)
You and I are human beings with our own opinions. Business relies on our good opinions to make money. They already got my money, so maybe my opinion doesn't matter, but if they want to get MORE people to give them their money...
Zaps were invented as a way for people to send lightning bitcoin to an event as a value offering. Since OPA isn't an open source protocol, I don't think "zaps" fit the medium. Maybe it's just a negative reaction to that word.
By fragmentation, I mean that only certain wallets will work with these zaps, whereas the basic lightning invoice will work with ALL lightning wallets, regardless of implementation. Furthermore, the appropriation of "zaps" outside of nostr confuses their initial intent or meaning. Podcasting 2.0 had developed the "boost" over a year ago allowing people to send lightning payments through podcast apps. At first I thought that was cool, but now I don't know how cool the attempted marketing is. Next year we're going to have pumps? Then shouts, hits, bumps.
reply