Correct. But that doesn't mean it's private at all. An attacker still sees everything in and out via zaps, which is how most people use it.
Our defaults have never ever been private.
I mostly agree Vitor, but it depends on what you mean by "everything". A zap is a public record that one person made a payment to another person
The question is whether the public record should also (implicitly or explicitly, it doesn't matter) point to the on-chain transaction
That appears to be the real issue you all are discussing, and the issue would still exist even if each payment was to a different address
Define "Noisy Payment" as a Silent Payment, but with a public event linking to the txid. Would that be a fix for onchain zaps, because it avoids address reuse; or equally harmful because the public can still see all the transactions?
The question is whether the public record should also (implicitly or explicitly, it doesn't matter) point to the on-chain transaction
That appears to be the real issue you all are discussing, and the issue would still exist even if each payment was to a different address
Define "Noisy Payment" as a Silent Payment, but with a public event linking to the txid. Would that be a fix for onchain zaps, because it avoids address reuse; or equally harmful because the public can still see all the transactions?