This feature, for instance, facilitates scenarios where a person might need to make payments on behalf of another, such as ordering food for pickup by someone else. The suggestion to use the payer_note field for this purpose coexists with the need for enhanced security measures, particularly mutual authentication between parties involved in a transaction.

The lack of mutual authentication in payment notes introduces vulnerabilities, potentially leading to phishing attacks. When payment offers are shared publicly, or even among private circles, the absence of authentication means that these notes can be manipulated by anyone, posing significant risks. To mitigate these concerns, it is proposed that wallets default to labeling payment notes as "untrusted." This approach aims to alert users that the author of a message within a payment note may not be who they purport to be, unless there is evidence of mutual authentication having occurred.

Addressing the challenge of distinguishing trustworthy communication from potential phishing attempts requires clear indicators for users. If a payment originates from a trusted contact, its authenticity is more assured. However, in cases where the source's trustworthiness is uncertain, caution is advised. Users should critically assess the context—such as familiar scenarios where a known third party makes a payment on one's behalf—before accepting the information at face value. This cautious stance against unverified messages underlines the importance of implementing mechanisms that effectively signal the reliability of payment-related communications to end users.