Sending support for silent payments was just merged into Wasabi Wallet: https://github.com/WalletWasabi/WalletWasabi/pull/13536
Receiving support is in development: https://github.com/WalletWasabi/WalletWasabi/pull/13565
Topic: Wallets supporting Silent Payments (Read 1091 times)
What's the status of including Silent Payments in an upcoming release of Bitcoin Core? Is it still in the works?
Another interesting article about Silent Payments was released on Hiro blog.
They explained basic of how Silent Payments work, and they mentioned how there is a lot more work to done on improving standard.
Electrum server protocol doesn't support silent payments so devs need to add t support to Electrum or create another standard.
https://www.hiro.so/blog/what-are-bitcoin-silent-payments
They explained basic of how Silent Payments work, and they mentioned how there is a lot more work to done on improving standard.
Electrum server protocol doesn't support silent payments so devs need to add t support to Electrum or create another standard.
https://www.hiro.so/blog/what-are-bitcoin-silent-payments
Not bad since there is no risk with signet.
The signet faucet in perhaps the best thing about the project so far. We already have a few wallets we can use to play around with silent payments, but this is the first signet faucet I have seen. A quick search found another one. It's useful for those who want to test silent payments without using real bitcoin. According to https://silentpayments.xyz/, Dana Wallet supports both sending and receiving already, which is a plus. You can add Dana wallet to your list in OP if you want. This is a brand-new wallet and it's the first time I hear about it. It's currently in alpha pre-release stage. They call it a "silent payment-native bitcoin wallet." The developers warn against using it on mainnet for the time being because it's still being developed. They suggest using signet.
Thanks for suggesting, this is the first time I heard about Dana wallet.I will consider adding it in near future, but this is just pre-release of early Alpha version.
It is probably going to be many bugs, so I would still not suggest anyone using this new wallet, but it's nice to see another Silent Payment wallet.
The team has also created a signet faucet where you can get free signet coins
Not bad since there is no risk with signet.I will try how it works.
@dkbit98
You can add Dana wallet to your list in OP if you want. This is a brand-new wallet and it's the first time I hear about it. It's currently in alpha pre-release stage. They call it a "silent payment-native bitcoin wallet." The developers warn against using it on mainnet for the time being because it's still being developed. They suggest using signet.
The team has also created a signet faucet where you can get free signet coins:
https://silentpayments.dev/
More information and some screenshots of the wallet below:
https://www.nobsbitcoin.com/dana-wallet-v0-1-0-alpha/
https://github.com/cygnet3/danawallet/releases/tag/v0.1.0-alpha
You can add Dana wallet to your list in OP if you want. This is a brand-new wallet and it's the first time I hear about it. It's currently in alpha pre-release stage. They call it a "silent payment-native bitcoin wallet." The developers warn against using it on mainnet for the time being because it's still being developed. They suggest using signet.
The team has also created a signet faucet where you can get free signet coins:
https://silentpayments.dev/
More information and some screenshots of the wallet below:
https://www.nobsbitcoin.com/dana-wallet-v0-1-0-alpha/
https://github.com/cygnet3/danawallet/releases/tag/v0.1.0-alpha
it will be more beneficial to businesses men who accepts bitcoin. This technology will help them avoid the public tracking back to their address when they reuse it, vice versa.
Also individuals who give out their bitcoin addresses on social media for donations will like the silent payment because it will prevent people linking their bitcoin address to their real life identity.
Think about it for a moment. People might not be able to track how much bitcoin a businessman has received, but they will still know that they are accepting BTC. If you are on social media and accepting donations, you are probably registered with your real name. I would never donate to an anonymous individual over social media if I don't know who it is and there is no way to prove that the money would be put to good use. I am sure many think like me. And again, you can connect bitcoin to a real person who accepts it with their posting of their silent payment address. What you don't know are the amounts they have received. Also individuals who give out their bitcoin addresses on social media for donations will like the silent payment because it will prevent people linking their bitcoin address to their real life identity.
I am sure that campaign managers would quickly get on board. They were supportive of segwit as well when it came out and started becoming popular.
I wouldn't be so sure. There was a big incentive to switch to Segwit, because it is much cheaper for large sized transactions, especially when made on a regular basis. However, this one is a different case. More complex and will be treated as unnecessary addition for a lot of wallet software (compared to Segwit). I can agree, though, that it would help in signature campaigns, even if it's not a holy grail if used in general. Silent payment is not very necessary here in the forum, it will be more beneficial to businesses men who accepts bitcoin. This technology will help them avoid the public tracking back to their address when they reuse it, vice versa.
Also individuals who give out their bitcoin addresses on social media for donations will like the silent payment because it will prevent people linking their bitcoin address to their real life identity.
Did they receive bounty opened for implementation of sending to silent payment address? BitBox is among those wallets which may apply for 0.01 BTC (not a big sum but still money).. Worthy to note that still only two other hardware wallets (namely Passport and SeedSighner) are among hardware wallets which may apply for such bounty. The door has been shut on the rest of HW I wonder why?
I have no idea about that, but someone should create a bounty for receiving Silent Payments in hardware wallets, that seems to be more complicated thing to do.Adding Silent payments to our profiles would require an adoption from campagin managers as well, but it would change things more radically than segwit adoption.
I would support this.We just need more wallets getting full support and we need someone from nanagers to break the ice.
If you'd use the same Silent address for different things, you wouldn't know who paid you. And if you combine inputs, the sender still finds out which other addresses belong to you.
Event with Silent Payments you still need to have good management for your addresses, so you don't have to join all your addresses into one.I think we still need to have additional tool to get more privacy means second layer solution, mixing, coinjoin or joinstr.
I am sure that campaign managers would quickly get on board. They were supportive of segwit as well when it came out and started becoming popular.
I wouldn't be so sure. There was a big incentive to switch to Segwit, because it is much cheaper for large sized transactions, especially when made on a regular basis. However, this one is a different case. More complex and will be treated as unnecessary addition for a lot of wallet software (compared to Segwit). I can agree, though, that it would help in signature campaigns, even if it's not a holy grail if used in general. 
you will have to know all the places where you posted your unique silent payment address
That in itself is a privacy problem: you'll link your presence on different sites together. Easy fix is of course to use different Silent addresses. To be, labeling isn't a problem. I like it. Adding Silent payments to our profiles would require an adoption from campagin managers as well, but it would change things more radically than segwit adoption.
I am sure that campaign managers would quickly get on board. They were supportive of segwit as well when it came out and started becoming popular. Besides, they don't lose anything if they support silent payments. But we will surely have to wait some time before we get to the point where the most commonly used wallets support this BIP. When that time comes, silent payments should become a normal thing. LoyceV does have a point, though, in that you will have to know all the places where you posted your unique silent payment address, and if you are using the same one everywhere, you won't be able to keep track of who paid you and for what. Unless, you know what amounts come from where.
Creating a new address, labeling it, taking care of inputs etc is complicated if you are worried about privacy.
Basically every week I need to give an address to some campaign or giveaway contest etc...
If you'd use the same Silent address for different things, you wouldn't know who paid you. And if you combine inputs, the sender still finds out which other addresses belong to you. Basically every week I need to give an address to some campaign or giveaway contest etc...
Maybe it can improve privacy for signature campaigns, depending on how the campaign manager publishes results. Or for sure it would be a privacy improvement if it replaces the address posted in Bitcointalk profiles.
I would really love such feature.
Creating a new address, labeling it, taking care of inputs etc is complicated if you are worried about privacy.
Basically every week I need to give an address to some campaign or giveaway contest etc...
Adding Silent payments to our profiles would require an adoption from campagin managers as well, but it would change things more radically than segwit adoption.
It's now official, BitBox02 just added support for Silent Payments,
Did they receive bounty opened for implementation of sending to silent payment address? BitBox is among those wallets which may apply for 0.01 BTC (not a big sum but still money).. Worthy to note that still only two other hardware wallets (namely Passport and SeedSighner) are among hardware wallets which may apply for such bounty. The door has been shut on the rest of HW I wonder why?
It's now official, BitBox02 just added support for Silent Payments, and this is now the first Hardware Wallet that can send Silent Payments.
This is a step in a right direction but note that receiving Silent Payments is not available yet with BitBox wallet.
I am hoping other hardware wallets will soon follow this example.
BitBox made a blog post explaining how Silent Payments work:
https://bitbox.swiss/blog/understanding-silent-payments-part-one/
List is updated:
This is a step in a right direction but note that receiving Silent Payments is not available yet with BitBox wallet.
I am hoping other hardware wallets will soon follow this example.
BitBox made a blog post explaining how Silent Payments work:
https://bitbox.swiss/blog/understanding-silent-payments-part-one/
List is updated:
- Cake Wallet beta
- Silentium wallet web experimental
- SeedSigner test
- Blue Wallet sending only
- BitBox02 Hardware Wallet sending only
Good move from BitBox.
They showed several times they really care about bitcoin privacy, they even donated to Samourai defense fund few weeks ago:
Unfortunately, they also showed a different side of themselves when Shift Crypto, their parent company, was one of the creators of AOPP, essentially a privacy-invasive KYC system for third-party and private addresses. Several other companies adopted AOPP soon after, but many gave up on the implementation after their users provided negative feedback about it. I think BitBox and Shift Crypto never walked away from this idea, mainly because Swiss regulatory law requires that their citizens perform verification of third-party bitcoin addresses. They showed several times they really care about bitcoin privacy, they even donated to Samourai defense fund few weeks ago:
Maybe it can improve privacy for signature campaigns, depending on how the campaign manager publishes results. Or for sure it would be a privacy improvement if it replaces the address posted in Bitcointalk profiles.
Donation addresses too, can benefit from this. Nobody would know who donated to people or organizations who posted the donation address.
Although, this might only make sense if the donations being sent via silent payments are large denominations of Bitcoins, like 1mBTC. It doesn't really work if the amounts are smaller than that, because a significant percentage is just going to be wasted on fees.
I don't know if bitcoin mixing can be imrpoved with Silent Payments but I would like to see someone trying to do this.
I don't think so. Silent payments only improve privacy when the address was publicly published. Mixers show the address in private to their user. Even if they'd use a Silent address, the on-chain result is exactly the same.Maybe it can improve privacy for signature campaigns, depending on how the campaign manager publishes results. Or for sure it would be a privacy improvement if it replaces the address posted in Bitcointalk profiles.
Silent payments would not be very silent if they could be easily identified in the blockchain (hence chain analysis also identifies them) - so therefore it's a good thing that there's crap like Ordinals and Runes for it to blend in with, "obfuscation" if you may call it that.
I have a feeling more wallets and privacy services will use Silent Payments in future and that should be good for everyone who likes to have more privacy.I don't know if bitcoin mixing can be imrpoved with Silent Payments but I would like to see someone trying to do this.
It looks like BitBox will soon become the first hardware wallet manufacturer to support silent payments. It will probably be released soon with an upcoming firmware/software update. There is already a video of a BitBox02 making a transaction to a silent payment address.
Good move from BitBox.They showed several times they really care about bitcoin privacy, they even donated to Samourai defense fund few weeks ago:
https://x.com/BitBoxSwiss/status/1810693680203755523
It looks like BitBox will soon become the first hardware wallet manufacturer to support silent payments. It will probably be released soon with an upcoming firmware/software update. There is already a video of a BitBox02 making a transaction to a silent payment address.
[...]
The problem with this solution is that you can't have an accurate transaction history if you need to use the wallet from more than one device regularly. Personally, I don't find this that much of an issue.It's difficult to keep track of your transactions in more than one device anyways, unless I'm the only one using labels.
Silent payments would not be very silent if they could be easily identified in the blockchain (hence chain analysis also identifies them) - so therefore it's a good thing that there's crap like Ordinals and Runes for it to blend in with, "obfuscation" if you may call it that.
It's pretty easy to spot an Ordinal. I don't see how this obfuscates the silent payments.On the other hand when the blocks are full of Taproot outputs, it becomes more computationally expensive to search for them.
According to these stats, in the last 90 days, only 1.66% of the output volume was of type taproot. People still use P2PKH very regularly (35.92%!!!), even under high fees. On second thought: I don't think the bold part should be the default: if you use multiple wallets, or resync your main wallet, you'd want your spent inputs to show up too.
Here's a quick thought: When creating your wallet, scan for all transactions that include a Taproot output. When opening your wallet afterwards, look only for unspent inputs. This way, it'll take some more time to find your transaction history only during setup. For faster scanning, silent payment software could give you a wallet block height for when recovering it in the future.
Silent payments would not be very silent if they could be easily identified in the blockchain (hence chain analysis also identifies them) - so therefore it's a good thing that there's crap like Ordinals and Runes for it to blend in with, "obfuscation" if you may call it that.
On the other hand when the blocks are full of Taproot outputs, it becomes more computationally expensive to search for them. The process is parallelizable to a degree, but only for parsing the transactions in a block. Unless you are querying from a node that carries block undo history.
So maybe we will see more applications of taproot in the future.
On second thought: I don't think the bold part should be the default: if you use multiple wallets, or resync your main wallet, you'd want your spent inputs to show up too.
Here's a quick thought: When creating your wallet, scan for all transactions that include a Taproot output. When opening your wallet afterwards, look only for unspent inputs. This way, it'll take some more time to find your transaction history only during setup. For faster scanning, silent payment software could give you a wallet block height for when recovering it in the future.
That's what I mean: I don't see how this can work without the server knowing the details and without the user downloading all (new) blocks?
In the case with silent payments, it can be implemented more efficiently than in Feather: Request from the server to send you only transactions that contain a Taproot ouput, occurred after the last time you opened your wallet, and haven't yet been spent. That will exclude a lot of unnecessary information.The latest 6.6.7 version of Blue Wallet now has support for silent payments. At the moment, you can only use Blue Wallet to send to silent payment addresses. The release notes don't mention that you can use the app to create a silent payment address. I am running the latest version on my phone and I tried to create a new wallet, but I couldn't find silent payments among the options.
Thanks for reporting.I added Blue Wallet to the list of wallets that (partially) support Silent Payments.
More wallets will eventually add Silent Payments when they become more stable.
Latest blog article explaining how Silent Payments work:
https://medium.com/@ottosch/how-silent-payments-work-41bea907d6b0
In the case with silent payments, it can be implemented more efficiently than in Feather: Request from the server to send you only transactions that contain a Taproot ouput, occurred after the last time you opened your wallet, and haven't yet been spent. That will exclude a lot of unnecessary information.
Thanks, this makes sense. It's quite genius! How? From what I understand about Silent Payments, you'll need to check all blocks to see which payments belong to you. If you use a light (or web) wallet, how can your wallet know this without a central server also knowing it?
Think of it like Monero: when you request blocks from a FeatherWallet server, the server does not know which coins are yours. You're just downloading blocks, checking if any of the transactions are yours, and if not, discarding. The server does not know which transactions you keep.That's what I mean: I don't see how this can work without the server knowing the details and without the user downloading all (new) blocks?
In the case with silent payments, it can be implemented more efficiently than in Feather: Request from the server to send you only transactions that contain a Taproot ouput, occurred after the last time you opened your wallet, and haven't yet been spent. That will exclude a lot of unnecessary information. They won't know who you are, but wouldn't they still be able to link all Silent Payments together? Say you post your SP-address here, and receive 2 donations. You'll receive both of them on a different Bitcoin address. But Silentium will know they belong together, right?
No they won't.Only sender and receiver know addresses and amounts that are send
I'm skeptical about Electrum, because their priority is to be lightweight, and silent payments move the burden to the user
That's what I mean: I don't see how this can work without the server knowing the details and without the user downloading all (new) blocks?
It'll take a while to spread on the reputable wallet software. I'm skeptical about Electrum, because their priority is to be lightweight, and silent payments move the burden to the user, but at least it's optional. You could argue the same about lightning, and they've written an entire lightning network implementation.
Let's see. Electrum and Sparrow are the ones that will activate the network effect.
Let's see. Electrum and Sparrow are the ones that will activate the network effect.
The latest 6.6.7 version of Blue Wallet now has support for silent payments. At the moment, you can only use Blue Wallet to send to silent payment addresses. The release notes don't mention that you can use the app to create a silent payment address. I am running the latest version on my phone and I tried to create a new wallet, but I couldn't find silent payments among the options.
They won't know who you are, but wouldn't they still be able to link all Silent Payments together? Say you post your SP-address here, and receive 2 donations. You'll receive both of them on a different Bitcoin address. But Silentium will know they belong together, right?
No they won't.Only sender and receiver know addresses and amounts that are send, but it's obviously always better to run a full node.
Someone could potentially suspect that your addresses are used if you consolidate exact amounts later into one address.
Easy to add node in Cake wallet settings.
I've never used it, and just checked: it's a phone app. I assume the server will handle the details on the Silent Payment, right? So it still defeats the purpose of "keeping it silent".
There is also Cake wallet for desktop, Linux, Mac and wind0ws.More about silent payments:
https://silentpayments.xyz/
You can use Silentium with tor browser to hide your IP address, and I think you can generate seed words offline.
They won't know who you are, but wouldn't they still be able to link all Silent Payments together? Say you post your SP-address here, and receive 2 donations. You'll receive both of them on a different Bitcoin address. But Silentium will know they belong together, right?I won't claim to fully understand how Silend Payments work, but as far as I know, running a full node is the only way to make sure nobody else knows which transactions belong to the same SP-address.
Quote
Cake wallet works much better but note that Silent Payments is still in beta phase.
I've never used it, and just checked: it's a phone app. I assume the server will handle the details on the Silent Payment, right? So it still defeats the purpose of "keeping it silent". Isn't a web wallet the opposite of what you'd want for Silent Payments? It's convenient, because you don't have to process all blocks, but your privacy depends on a third party.
You can use Silentium with tor browser to hide your IP address, and I think you can generate seed words offline.I am not supporting any wallets in this list, and Silentium is more experimental proof of concept wallet to test how Silent Payments work, so it should not be used with larger amount of coins.
There are some reports from users with coins getting stuck using Silentium because of sync issues, so I don't recommend it for anything serious.
Cake wallet works much better but note that Silent Payments is still in beta phase.
- Cake Wallet beta
- Silentium wallet web
- SeedSigner test
Is there a discussion about Silent Payments going around on the Forum? I just found out about it, am very curious to learn more but I do not think I understand how it works yet.
See witcher_sense's topic: Silent payments. When the recipient provides a silent payment address to the sender, does the sender actually combine some keys and will this key result in a public address of the recipient's wallet that only he (the recipient) knows?
Yes. As shown above, the sender uses the key pair of one of his inputs (r for private key, R for public key). He then creates another key pair, hash(r*A) as private key and hash(r*A)*G as the public key. Then, he adds hash(r*A)*G to public key B, which is the key the recipient uses to spend the bitcoin. The resulting public key is hash(r*A)*G + B. The private key of this public key is hash(r*A) + b, which is unknown for the sender (as he does not know b), but known by the recipient, because r*A = r*a*G = r*G*a = a*R. The recipient knows a, R, b. Therefore, they can spend from the receiving address.
Is there a discussion about Silent Payments going around on the Forum? I just found out about it, am very curious to learn more but I do not think I understand how it works yet.
Which part is more difficult to understand? 
Is there a discussion about Silent Payments going around on the Forum? I just found out about it, am very curious to learn more but I do not think I understand how it works yet.
If I understand correctly how silent payments in bitcoin work in practice:
When the recipient provides a silent payment address to the sender, does the sender actually combine some keys and will this key result in a public address of the recipient's wallet that only he (the recipient) knows?
Is this silent payment address reusable with privacy and security?
It reminded me of BIP47, as it is similar.
When the recipient provides a silent payment address to the sender, does the sender actually combine some keys and will this key result in a public address of the recipient's wallet that only he (the recipient) knows?
Is this silent payment address reusable with privacy and security?
It reminded me of BIP47, as it is similar.
FOR THE SENDER
When someone wants to send funds to a Silent Payment address, in practice all they’ll need to do is scan or copy/paste the payment code into their favorite wallet (assuming it is supported), and send the payment as usual. But what exactly is happening behind the scenes?
When the sender enters the Silent Payment address into their wallet, their wallet will combine three keys to create a unique, one-time address that only the intended recipient can spend from. This unique address is created by combining the public key (or “address,” in layman’s terms) of one of the inputs that the sender wants to spend to the recipient, the public key of the recipient (contained in the Silent Payment address), and a “shared secret” key the sender generates that only the sender and recipient know. Thanks to something known as the “commutative” property in cryptography, the sender can combine these keys but cannot spend from the resulting address, as they don’t know the recipient’s private key (of course).
What three keys are these? I think this article was not very clear in explaining how silent payments work. When someone wants to send funds to a Silent Payment address, in practice all they’ll need to do is scan or copy/paste the payment code into their favorite wallet (assuming it is supported), and send the payment as usual. But what exactly is happening behind the scenes?
When the sender enters the Silent Payment address into their wallet, their wallet will combine three keys to create a unique, one-time address that only the intended recipient can spend from. This unique address is created by combining the public key (or “address,” in layman’s terms) of one of the inputs that the sender wants to spend to the recipient, the public key of the recipient (contained in the Silent Payment address), and a “shared secret” key the sender generates that only the sender and recipient know. Thanks to something known as the “commutative” property in cryptography, the sender can combine these keys but cannot spend from the resulting address, as they don’t know the recipient’s private key (of course).
the devs from the hardware wallet Bitbox2 are working on integrating sending to a silent payment address 
Quote
bitcoin: support sending to silent payment addresses
https://github.com/BitBoxSwiss/bitbox02-firmware/pull/1220
Cake wallet just released new beta version of their desktop wallet for wind0ws and linux os, and they added Silent Payments for Bitcoin!
Anyone wanting to test silent payment please tell me and we can do test transaction between two of us.
This is still beta version and bugs are possible so please use smaller amounts.
Cake desktop wallet now also support Monero.
Cake wallet latest release:
https://github.com/cake-tech/cake_wallet/releases/tag/v4.18.0
Anyone wanting to test silent payment please tell me and we can do test transaction between two of us.
This is still beta version and bugs are possible so please use smaller amounts.
Cake desktop wallet now also support Monero.
Cake wallet latest release:
https://github.com/cake-tech/cake_wallet/releases/tag/v4.18.0
And this is not something that can be banned or anything because it's literally just using bitcoin addresses in a way that cannot be tracked by chain analysis.
They can still be tracked, so this is not a perfect privacy solution for bitcoin, but it is still a big improvement. This almost made it to Bitcoin Core's next major release v28 but was dropped from the priority list to be replaced by another update.
There's a "Tracking Issue" for those who want to see when this will get implemented in the reference client, currently at 4/15 tasks completed.
Link: BIP352 tracking issue (issue# 28536)
There's a "Tracking Issue" for those who want to see when this will get implemented in the reference client, currently at 4/15 tasks completed.
Link: BIP352 tracking issue (issue# 28536)
This is incredible!
I am sure that this feature will make it into many different software wallets once Bitcoin Core implements it.
And this is not something that can be banned or anything because it's literally just using bitcoin addresses in a way that cannot be tracked by chain analysis.
It will be very useful for privacy the more you think about it. We needed an answer to this maelstrom and now we have it.
Foundation Passport has also announced that they are planning to introduce support for BIP351 and Silent Payments. They plan to integrate it with both Envoy and the Passport hardware wallet in the future. Of course, it's not added yet, but just something for you to keep an eye on.
They were talking about Silent Payments but referring to BIP351 rather than relevant BIP352.
BIP351 and BIP352 are two different stuff which address the same problem but have differing approach for resolving it.
Thus, still it is unclear (at least for me) what exactly Foundation has in mind. I have pointed on this discrepancy in their official thread but no answer jet.
UPD. Finally they made this issue clear. The reference for BIP351 was the mislead from their part and Passport will implement BIP352.
Yes, I meant 352! Edited my post now.
This almost made it to Bitcoin Core's next major release v28 but was dropped from the priority list to be replaced by another update.
There's a "Tracking Issue" for those who want to see when this will get implemented in the reference client, currently at 4/15 tasks completed.
Link: BIP352 tracking issue (issue# 28536)
There's a "Tracking Issue" for those who want to see when this will get implemented in the reference client, currently at 4/15 tasks completed.
Link: BIP352 tracking issue (issue# 28536)
Fungible tokens are trash and a waste of money, don’t get me wrong. However, Runes are not an attack vector, as they implement similar protocols in a much more efficient manner.
What I said was subjective. I consider them an attack vector because I see them as intentional spam meant to fill up blocks with garbage and keep out genuine use from people not willing to play along and overpay their transactions hundreds or thousands of times. Not to mention the scam side of them for tricking gullible know-nothings into investing in such crap. That rules out the on-chain spam like Runes and Ordinals probably (not sure which of these two attack vectors use taproot).
Runes use OP_RETURN, Ordinals use Taproot. Fungible tokens are trash and a waste of money, don’t get me wrong. However, Runes are not an attack vector, as they implement similar protocols in a much more efficient manner. SPV clients don't have this information locally (you don't have a record of the blockchain on your computer), so they will need more time and bandwidth to verify everything.
If you've used Monero in an SPV client, then it's similar process. Feather, as an example, fetches blockchain data from default servers, and unless you've lost your block height, syncing does not take a lot of time to finish. In fact, in Bitcoin, it'll be much faster because the servers will only send you Taproot transactions. Obviously a little kind of burden to SPV clients. However, when adoption increases, such discrepancies will fade away just like as it was with bc1 addresses.
I don't think it will. A full node stores the entire blockchain record locally and it's, therefore, easier and quicker for it to go and check all the transactions that could belong to you. SPV clients don't have this information locally (you don't have a record of the blockchain on your computer), so they will need more time and bandwidth to verify everything. 
The way I understood it, people running their own nodes will benefit in the speed of scanning compared to those relying on SPV clients. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
That's correct. When a sender pays you silently, you don't know where your bitcoin is, unless you check for all incoming transactions and perform the necessary operations. That's a burden for SPV clients, because they somehow need to be aware of all incoming transactions (that matter*). * not all transactions can be silent payments, so there are a lot of exclusions the server can make.
Thanks BlackHatCoiner for the detailed explanation of why the address appeared longer than normal.
* not all transactions can be silent payments, so there are a lot of exclusions the server can make.
Correct. Only taproot transactions can be silent payments. So a server can skip anything that isn't a taproot output. Servers can also skip any taproot output below a certain size. That rules out the on-chain spam like Runes and Ordinals probably (not sure which of these two attack vectors use taproot). Finally, there could be an option to scan only taproot outputs after a certain date or block height. If you generated your silent payment address last week, there is no need to have your client scan anything older than that because you can't possibly receive a payment before you had a silent payment address. More details are covered in these docs:
https://silentpayments.xyz/docs/explained/
Why is it a way longer than the usual addresses?
For the same reason Monero addresses are longer. Because, it encodes two public keys.This explains with many details on differences among Bitcoin address types and length (total characters of each address type). At the bottom of article, it has a Reference table that summarize explanations very well.
An example of difference is Segwit single signature address will have 42 characters but a multisig address will have 62 characters.
Why is it a way longer than the usual addresses?
For the same reason Monero addresses are longer. Because, it encodes two public keys. One which is used to spend the bitcoin, and another which is used to scan the bitcoin. Think of it like this:- The receiver creates two pairs of private and public keys; (a, A) for scanning, and (b, B) for spending. Their silent payment address is [A, B] (concatenation of public keys A, B)
- The sender uses one of their inputs as another pair of private and public keys. Let's call them r and R.
- The sender constructs a public key P which is the result of adding the public key of the private key hash(r*A) to B. (At this point, the receiver doesn't know they control P)
- When the receiver receives the sender's transaction, they can perform a mathematical operation, and realize they can work out the private key that is used to produce P.
Read more about it in here: https://monero.stackexchange.com/a/1535/17055. It's how a stealth address works, which is very similar to how a silent payment address works.
The way I understood it, people running their own nodes will benefit in the speed of scanning compared to those relying on SPV clients. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
That's correct. When a sender pays you silently, you don't know where your bitcoin is, unless you check for all incoming transactions and perform the necessary operations. That's a burden for SPV clients, because they somehow need to be aware of all incoming transactions (that matter*). * not all transactions can be silent payments, so there are a lot of exclusions the server can make.
Here is example how Silent Payment addresses look
Why is it a way longer than the usual addresses?Quote
sp1qq0rdyln9cwthvkyd7z7yq5kcpdhlc70h5u9tk2v8dja0gm684twxsqsls3j3phhlg0gnkawqeqq p20q03en269hg26g2fw03tzrc9g75zuume85y
https://bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/cryptonote
How to recognize different crypto address types
Quote
Monero addresses start with 4 and 8, and are even longer: 95 characters.
Example:
4AdUndXHHZ6cfufTMvppY6JwXNouMBzSkbLYfpAV5Usx3skxNgYeYTRj5UzqtReoS44qo9mtmXCqY45 DJ852K5Jv2684Rge
Example:
4AdUndXHHZ6cfufTMvppY6JwXNouMBzSkbLYfpAV5Usx3skxNgYeYTRj5UzqtReoS44qo9mtmXCqY45 DJ852K5Jv2684Rge
The sp1 address above has more than 95 characters, it has 116 characters.
This means the wallet keeps generating different addresses which interacts with the blockchain while allowing the user to maintain 1 addy from their own end. How will the blockchain analysis be?
Each payment on the blockchain will look like any other Taproot payment. Third parties wouldn't be able to look at the on-chain data and recognize that it's a payment made to a silent payment address. Silent payments require more work on the receiver's end to scan the blockchain and recognize that payments were sent their way. The way I understood it, people running their own nodes will benefit in the speed of scanning compared to those relying on SPV clients. Someone correct me if I am wrong. Every time you receive coins with Silent Payment they will end up in new bitcoin address, so there is no more address reuse.
This means the wallet keeps generating different addresses which interacts with the blockchain while allowing the user to maintain 1 addy from their own end. How will the blockchain analysis be?Here is example how Silent Payment addresses look
Why is it a way longer than the usual addresses? Quote
sp1qq0rdyln9cwthvkyd7z7yq5kcpdhlc70h5u9tk2v8dja0gm684twxsqsls3j3phhlg0gnkawqeqq p20q03en269hg26g2fw03tzrc9g75zuume85y
Foundation Passport has also announced that they are planning to introduce support for BIP351 and Silent Payments. They plan to integrate it with both Envoy and the Passport hardware wallet in the future. Of course, it's not added yet, but just something for you to keep an eye on.
I am not using a SeedSigner, but which is one of the safest cold storage that can be used. I am not using a web wallet, but Silentium wallet is a web wallet. I wanted to try how it would work on Cake wallet and I decided to download it but I saw this malware warning which made me uninstall the wallet immediately:
I have not seen this warning before, but I can not risk it. Or what do you think about installing it?
Bluewallet is working on silent payment and I am looking forward to see a release of an update that will support it. I hope Electrum and other reputable wallets also will support it.
I have not seen this warning before, but I can not risk it. Or what do you think about installing it?
Bluewallet is working on silent payment and I am looking forward to see a release of an update that will support it. I hope Electrum and other reputable wallets also will support it.
Silent Payments are interesting new form of Bitcoin addresses that allows preserving privacy with one reusable address.
All Silent Payment bitcoin addresses are starting with sp1 and they can be considered as stealth addresses or reusable payment codes.
Only the sender and receiver can connect Silent Payment address address with on-chain activity, so this makes it perfect for donations purposes as a single address.
Every time you receive coins with Silent Payment they will end up in new bitcoin address, so there is no more address reuse.
Silent Payments was originally proposed by Ruben Somsen as BIP-0352 back in 2022, but this year they are really kicking off and wallets are starting to implement it.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0352.mediawiki
Here is example how Silent Payment addresses look
Wallets currently supporting Silent Payments:
All Silent Payment bitcoin addresses are starting with sp1 and they can be considered as stealth addresses or reusable payment codes.
Only the sender and receiver can connect Silent Payment address address with on-chain activity, so this makes it perfect for donations purposes as a single address.
Every time you receive coins with Silent Payment they will end up in new bitcoin address, so there is no more address reuse.
Silent Payments was originally proposed by Ruben Somsen as BIP-0352 back in 2022, but this year they are really kicking off and wallets are starting to implement it.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0352.mediawiki
Here is example how Silent Payment addresses look
Quote
sp1qq0rdyln9cwthvkyd7z7yq5kcpdhlc70h5u9tk2v8dja0gm684twxsqsls3j3phhlg0gnkawqeqq p20q03en269hg26g2fw03tzrc9g75zuume85y
Wallets currently supporting Silent Payments:
- Cake Wallet beta
- Silentium wallet web experimental
- SeedSigner test
- Blue Wallet sending only
Jump to: