thebullishbitcoiner

> Does anyone know why that is?

The pushback can be found in [the ticket](https://github.com/lnurl/luds/issues/182#issuecomment-1261551867):

> I think this is an attack on Lightning since it incentivizes lazy companies that want to be "non-custodial" to write services that require users to have a Lightning Address to work, thus excluding people running home nodes and noncustodial mobile wallets.

I'm not sure, but I'm glad you let us know.

lightning

While I was writing a polling function to verify payments, I came across this error when trying to use a Primal address. 

![](https://m.stacker.news/58698)

I think it’s pretty cool that two of our favorites — @Alby and @sn — support LNURL-verify! Are there any others?

I couldn’t find much on here except that it seems like it wasn’t that popular. Here’s @koob’s comment when it got [merged into LUD-21](https://stacker.news/items/564422/r/shadowstacker):

> I'm surprised. That one received a ton of pushback over ~~the years~~ what feels like years.

Does anyone know why that is?