BOLT 12: feature to allow requests of a bolt11 invoice. - #1336
rustyrussell wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
70 is taken by lightning#1149 Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
| [bolt04-mpp]: 04-onion-routing.md#basic-multi-part-payments | ||
| [bolt04-route-blinding]: 04-onion-routing.md#route-blinding | ||
| [bolt04-attributable-errors]: 04-onion-routing.md | ||
| [bolt12-bolt11-req]: 12-offer-encoding.md#requrements-for-invoice-requests |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit:
| [bolt12-bolt11-req]: 12-offer-encoding.md#requrements-for-invoice-requests | |
| [bolt12-bolt11-req]: 12-offer-encoding.md#requirements-for-invoice-requests |
|
|
||
| The requirement to use `offer_paths` if present, ensures a node does not reveal it is the source of an offer if it is asked directly. Similarly, the requirement that the correct path is used for the offer ensures that cannot be made to reveal that it is the same node that created some other offer. | ||
|
|
||
| The `option_bolt11_request` field allows a backwards-compatible mechanism for simple offers, to simplify transition. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like we missed the part to bind the bolt11 invoice. For a bolt12 invoice there's a cryptographic binding, but for bolt11 invoice there is no proof that it is coming from the offer? Like the payer cannot prove it corresponds to the exact request or offer version.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed. That's bolt11 for you.
|
Mh, I do not recall the main reason why this is considered sanity? Could you please help me to understand what the workflow of LNURL is that will require using bolt12 to fetch a bolt11 invoice? |
With this, you can create a generic bip353 server (which has to return a bolt12) in front of a LNURL service (which returns a bolt11). It's not particularly hard to add, or support. It might be considered a bad idea, but it is a bridge which may help ease transition. |
Don't allow quantity and bolt11 together. Reported-by: https://github.com/yyforyongyu Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
I see, I am wondering if the transition would be much smoother now that payer proof is getting inside Nostr, but I see now! However, do you/we already have someone who will try to use this? I am worried that this will be the bridge to slow down the transition |
5 participants
This would allow a bridge to create a LNURL adapter for a BIP353. for simple offers.