Good morning
it's way too late, but i keep thinking about one simple question from
@Americanfort_io :
what if your payment name didn't have to become a map of your wallet?
i used to think a public crypto name and a private transaction history were impossible to separate.
share the name, and people can trace the wallet.
hide every address, and you make payments harder to identify later.
AmericanFortress is taking a different approach.
with a FortressName, you keep one
@name while each payment gets a fresh one-time address.
only the sender and recipient can derive that address, and only the recipient can spend the funds.
the payment still settles on the native blockchain.
that means your public name does not simply point everyone to one fixed wallet, balance, and payment history.
and there is another part i like:
Send-to-Name™ removes the copy-paste step that makes address poisoning possible.
instead of checking seven characters and hoping you got it right,
you send to
@name.
one FortressName already works across 13 integrated networks.
SafeSend™ is still in development, so i'm not treating its future privacy features as something you can use today.
for now, the live idea is already simple:
one name for you.
a fresh address for each payment.
less information tied to one public wallet.
that's a much nicer way to think about crypto payments.
would you rather share one name than keep sharing one wallet address?
@NucleusCodes