Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

LUD-23 Webhook notification for a third-party in pay protocol #147

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: luds
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

hsjoberg
Copy link
Collaborator

@hsjoberg hsjoberg commented Apr 12, 2022

I submit this pull request in a friendly manner as an alternative to the LUD-22 proposal.
The reason is that I think that LUD-22 as it stands right now worsens the user experience in a way I don't think is sound, it does not feel LNURL-ish.

LUD-22 strips the user out of LNURL-pay and they're only given a BOLT11. Unfortunately due to the way BOLT11 and LNURL-pay works, the only thing they get is a payment hash.

In LUD-23, the user and the wallet would still experience LNURL-pay as they normally do without a webhook.
The user possibly also opt out of the sending the third party notification if the wallet software makes this option available for them (possible privacy benefit).

23.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
23.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@hsjoberg hsjoberg force-pushed the webhook-notification branch from 4eb76be to 7d24b51 Compare April 14, 2022 12:58
`WALLET` `MAY` inform the user if the `webhookAllowed` response in the first
wallet does not exist.

`WALLET` `MUST` disallow payments if `webhookAllowed` is set to `false`.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what should the wallet do if the webhook param was in the lnurl request but the first callback didn't contain the webhookAllowed param

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@hsjoberg hsjoberg Sep 20, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@benthecarman Hmm yeah that would mean that the third party server is trying to use a feature that is not supported by the LNURL-pay service.
I think failing makes the most sense in that situation.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That should probably be specified

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Indeed, I'll address this.

@hsjoberg hsjoberg marked this pull request as draft September 20, 2022 18:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants