[hugs]

> You could eliminate a lot of the fraud by moving off a mostly-static identifier to merchant, amount and time-limited tokens the user generates with their bank (or the merchant redirects them there). This would address a lot of the issues - the tokens are useless when leaked...

This almost sounds like a subtle recommendation for the Lightning Network. It's based on single-use invoices that are locked to a specific recipient and is usually limited to specific amounts.

[quohort]

It's pretty much how every cryptocurrency works, with separation of public (receive) and private (send) keys.

The fact that invoices are temporary in LN is a weakness of the design, not an intentional choice. The lightning network represents a regression from the typical use-case of cryptocurrency because both sender and receiver need to be online to make a payment.

[egypturnash]

There's a lot of interesting ideas around cryptocurrency but they all kind of have the problem that they're associated with cryptocurrency, which is now strongly associated with absurdly high transaction fees, get-rich-quick scams, and wasting colossal amounts of energy for a pathetically-low transaction throughput.

Good luck convincing J. Random User that your cryptocurrency is none of these things.

[EasyMark]

I would never recommend anything as volatile as crypto for a payment system.

[kinakomochidayo]

Lightning Network will never get widespread adoption because the UX is horrible.

[hugs]

That hasn't been my experience using Alby and Primal's Nostr client. It's been as easy as Venmo.