46 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 14 Aug \ parent \ on: SN release: p2p non-custodial zaps, lnbits receiving, sats filter meta
Yes, it’s next on my list.
However, since we don’t want to store spending permissions on the server where we coordinate receiving and NWC uses the same connection string for both, this might get tricky.
Receiving with WebLN will also be tricky since it’s not available on the server.
write
preview
161 sats \ 2 replies \ @supertestnet 14 Aug
Where do you store the spend key for LNBits? If not on the server then presumably on the client -- or encrypted on the server in a blob which gets downloaded/decrypted by the client. Whatever you do for lnbits, you can probably do the same for NWC
reply
115 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 14 Aug
Yep, we can use a different NWC string for each sending/receiving.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 14 Aug
Ah, I didn't realize that the permissions can be configured per string by the wallet (at least Alby does that) even though it's not mentioned in the spec:
https://m.stacker.news/45892
edit: Oh, I forgot that the info event is per connection string, not per wallet. Then it makes sense that you're supposed to declare what this connection allows with it.
reply