0 sats \ 17 replies \ @siggy47 19 Aug \ parent \ on: SN release: Blink sending wallet, and fixes for LNC, profiles, invoice retries meta
Yes, I was talking to @ek about the problem I was having on Umbrel, using Oak node app, because Umbrel doesn't have https. I am starting a Start9 node, so I should be able to connect it there. I know there are a lot of Umbrel users, so I wonder if there is a workaround?
I looked into the source code of Oak Node and I see how they appear to only generate a secret but I didn't really understand why or how that secret is supposed to get used.
I think we need to get a hold of someone from Oak Node to understand how they implemented NWC. I found out that ok300 is the Github account and they have a forum and ticket system at oak-node.net but I didn't create a ticket since I don't run it and thus don't feel like I have enough information.
Do you mind creating one in which you describe your problem in detail? They have anonymous login.
reply
Sure. I'll do that. In the meantime, I used the Alby Hub this morning and it was simple. They have a dedicated NWC app. For people running their own nodes, this is the much simpler way to go. Do you anticipate setting up NWC send and receive?
reply
Yeah, I am going to use Alby Hub to test my PR for NWC receive today. It already works, just need to add some checks so permissions to spend from your wallet don't accidentally land on the server.
It might also only work with Alby Hub since they are the only ones that allow to set permissions per connection. For example, cashu.me only allows a single connection and you can't set permissions. That's going to be annoying but we really want to keep spending permission away from the server. We'll have to bother the wallets to support multiple connections and restrictions if they don't yet.
reply
Yeah. That's important. It would kind of defeat the whole purpose 😀
reply
Oh yeah, right, that probably wouldn't be considered non-custodial, haha
reply
I talked to another founder whose lawyers said it is non-custodial - legally at least. I think because you can unilaterally revoke their ability to spend on your behalf, and it's permissions to spend but you don't hold the money. Still, it's a honeypot. It's like storing credit card info.
reply
reply