pull down to refresh
1150 sats \ 8 replies \ @ek 27 Feb freebie \ parent \ on: Have you connected an external wallet on SN? meta
We don't want to be a wallet; we don't want to be a custodian (in the long run).
We think you should connect your wallet to SN, not SN to your wallet.
So I think what you have in mind with persistent LNURL-withdrawal links is what actually would push us backwards: being more like a wallet or "source" as it seems to be called in Shockwallet.
Also, I don't see how persistent LNURL-withdrawal links have to be required for what you're showing. Can't you create withdrawals on the fly? If you simply need better API access for that, let us know.
Sad, really sad that you still didn't get what really is Shock Wallet...
reply
What you've done though is exactly the opposite of you're stated objective.... you've now turned SN into a programmable wallet. The aligned pattern would be instead yielding to rules controlled by an independent wallet like ShockWallet.
Custodian labels is theater in this context tbf, it's a trusted budget and invoice transport no matter what you want to project it as- to regulators or otherwise. Getting trapped into narrative corners like that is no way to create better solutions.
The only standard way to withdraw on the fly afaik is a withdrawal link, which expires and therefore breaks after it's been connected. That's already standard you support that doesn't require all the overhead you just implemented to remain a trusted and centralized service