Add "ATM" option to the TPoS to use LUD-19 withdraw request to top up a wallet (e.g. bolt card)

[gorrdy]

This PR adds a functionality to withdraw from a wallet by tapping e.g. bolt card that is paired to a backend with LUD-19 support. It works like ATM.

The ATM must be allowed by the user. Once this is set, anyone that has access to the TPoS can withdraw sats from the wallet up to the wallet balance.

This has to be considered if the TPoS link is handed to any person so he may withdraw all the funds from wallet. Also any "ATM" TPoS link should not be anywhere on web.

All previously configured TPoS are not allowed to withdraw, the user has to explicitly allow the ATM functionality.

Thanks @iwarp for the initial PoC
iWarpBTC@5092c7f

[gorrdy]

[arbadacarbaYK]

corresponds to lnbits/boltcards#19

[arcbtc]

Uh oh, this pr was first #19 and has some extra functionality for security

Is it possible to take the boltcard part of this retrofit it onto that pr?

Or we could merge the other pr and you could add the boltcard part?

Huge coincidence

[gorrdy]

The #19 I've seen today for the first time. This PR only adds possibility to withdraw from TPoS extension using LUD-19 nfc card with a simple button in TPoS.

This is just a simple feature, yours seems to be a completely new functionality. Not sure if I'm capable of merging two completely different pull requests.

[gorrdy]

@arcbtc after merging #19 i will try to add the bolt card LUD-19 feature

[prusnak]

Needs rebase

[talvasconcelos]

Hey, @gorrdy , have you managed to integrate the boltcard thing into the extension with the ATM functionality?

CC @arcbtc

[tlindi]

FYI: tpos 0.6.0 does not show "ATM" button on UI if tpos has empty "Max amount to be sold daily (sats)"
ie IMO that should be marked as mandatory setting.

[arbadacarbaYK]

Pls follow-up-merge with lnbits/boltcards#19 that is adding the possibility to set up such a card that can be topped up. Otherwise its just a feature to support smth that cannot be set up :P

[prusnak]

I think we should close this one because #64 has been merged? @talvasconcelos