Feature Request: BIP47 payment codes for private donations (PayNym)

[satrinity402]

In the current environment, it would be extremely beneficial if bitcoin wallet developers using BDK could have an easy way to integrate BIP47 payment codes into their wallets for receiving payments privately (especially donations) without needing to setup a server to generate fresh addresses for each payment. Would need functionality for sending to other BIP47 payment codes as well.

Both Samourai Wallet and Sparrow Wallet are FOSS, and have integrated this functionality into their wallets.

[artdesignbySF]

I am for this enhancement and would love to see it adopted by all major wallets.

[BitcoinQnA]

Another +1 here

[satrinity402]

Looks like there is already a BIP47 implementation for Rust: https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bip47

[modl21]

I am for this enhancement and would love to see it adopted by all major wallets.

I echo this sentiment.

[luke-jr]

The goal of a reusable donation address is great, but BIP47 is a bad way to do it. Recommend against implementing.

[rottenwheel]

@luke-jr Yeah, that's why we should always post our legacy BTC addresses to receive donations; everyone can snoop in for eternity, right? No SegWit, that must be a bad way to do it too. We need to advise against BIP47 and SegWit, all the way.

• https://oxt.me/address/1A6eLsi6cmm2xKDSGThd8C2kfzDBXD8YTw
• https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1468009813913309193

A toast for Bitcoin's efficiency and privacy!

[ElmoOutlaw]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here!
We have spent years trying to ignore BIP47 and have spent a huge deal of energy and time trying to push the narrative against the Red Wall that we just can't possibly start to implement it into our wallets.
Don't get me wrong it's nothing to do with privacy, it's more of a save face kinda thang.

Just HODL thru it y'all.

[BitcoinQnA]

The goal of a reusable donation address is great, but BIP47 is a bad way to do it. Recommend against implementing.

@luke-jr It would be useful if you could explain the technicals behind why you think this. Saying 'it's bad' doesn't help.

[apemithrandir]

Are we doing a bounty for this one?
Some of the peeps were sceptical of a pr merge into Bluewallet
(BlueWallet/BlueWallet#2883).
I could offer a first to implement bounty on my 500k sats from Bluewallet.
Not sure if that is acceptable within the gentleman's agreements.

[afilini]

I'm gonna try to work on this myself since there's so much demand for it, I might have to fix a few things along the way but it shouldn't take too long

The goal of a reusable donation address is great, but BIP47 is a bad way to do it. Recommend against implementing.

@luke-jr with BDK we are trying to support as much as we can in terms of existing standards, so I think it makes sense to implement it even if it might not be the best option for everyone. We had a similar discussion in #534 about BIP69, and in the end we decided to just add a warning and avoid removing the implementation entirely, in case somebody needs it for compatibility with older protocols.

If you can provide a technical explanation we could consider doing the same for BIP47 and provide a link to this discussion in the warning message.

[artdesignbySF]

The goal of a reusable donation address is great, but BIP47 is a bad way to do it. Recommend against implementing.

@luke-jr It would be useful if you could explain the technicals behind why you think this. Saying 'it's bad' doesn't help.

I am always interested to learn why things are bad for bitcoin. Please explain.

[notmandatory]

@luke-jr Yeah, that's why we should always post our legacy BTC addresses to receive donations; everyone can snoop in for eternity, right? No SegWit, that must be a bad way to do it too. We need to advise against BIP47 and SegWit, all the way.

@rottenstonks there is no need to get snarky or ad hominem in this discussion.