Being able to pay your own invoices without routing would be great for Stacker News. With such a loopback, stackers paying each other with CCs can be implemented just like p2p payments. However, this is not something LND supports yet. It always has to create a route for each payment.
Self payments are possible using --allow-circular-route and --allow_self_payment but they still route through the lightning network. You can't do this without channels.
A chance for SN to contribute back to LND? ๐Ÿ‘€
397 sats \ 2 replies \ @fanis 24 Oct
IIRC LNBits circumvented this by intercepting invoices before handing them to LND, and processing "to-self" invoices separately as database-only transfers. But it would indeed be nice if LND had it baked in, instead of everybody that has a use case for it reimplementing the feature.
reply
intercepting invoices before handing them to LND
This is the correct way, we do this in Lightning.Pub too... LND is a Lightning implementation, not a service middleware
That said, LND does indeed have raw HTLC interception built-in, apparently SN isn't using it
reply
That said, LND does indeed have raw HTLC interception built-in, apparently SN isn't using it
may the dynamic types be with us
reply
Wait, how would this work? You'd have to bring funds from one of your channels into another one without going through a peer, no? This would require some onchain swapping? Or at least, increasing the size of one of the channels? I'm probably missing sth there...
reply
111 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek OP 24 Oct
This wouldn't be implemented as a protocol thing, so no channels involved.
I just want to do the equivalent of accessing localhost without requiring access to the internet but lightning requires real channels and real routes for every paymentโ€”no exceptions.
reply
You still routing outside to your channel peers, no? You also set the prices for your channels, It would be nice but still it ain't purely "localhost" style, tbh... --allow_self_payment, --outgoing_chan_id --last_hop and --fee_limit are your friends but still....
reply
Ok. I'll let that one sink in. Tnx
reply
Does anything speak against decoding the invoice and checking whether the payee public key is the same as the public key of the own node and then just not doing a payment through LND, but instead just moving around some numbers in the internal database?
And to prevent anyone else from paying the invoice afterwards, you can use the CancelInvoice RPC call: https://api.lightning.community/api/lnd/invoices/cancel-invoice/index.html
reply
but instead just moving around some numbers in the internal database?
That's probably how we're going to do it. It would just be nice if we wouldn't need a workaround for this as others have mentioned in the issue.
reply
Too many chef's in the kitchen trying to do rocket surgery.
reply
If SN would listen to me and implement a LNDHUB system (like in LNBits) , all this could be avoided. But they don't. I scream out loud from the beginning of SN: implement LNDHUB for stackers.
reply
156 sats \ 9 replies \ @ek OP 24 Oct
But they don't.
LNDHub is custodial.
reply
reply
474 sats \ 7 replies \ @ek OP 24 Oct
Just what I thought. You usually don't listen to what our requirements are and suggest solutions that are clearly incompatible with what we're trying to do, sometimes to the degree it looks like trolling. But it's funny so go ahead.
๐Ÿ‘€
reply
I for one am excited to head west into the undeveloped wilderness of using a website where you pay creators without depositing to the website first (although we already have it with NOSTR, but still its very much a wilderness)
reply
reply
sometimes to the degree it looks like trolling
define trolling Just commenting your posts is trolling now? btw I PAID SATS FOR COMMENTING.
reply
Somebody have to tell you that you are on the wrong path...
reply
You know you can always fork SN and implement all the changes and operate it exactly as you wish instead of just hounding ek and Koob to do your bidding.
Itโ€™s free and open source code. Man up and make it
reply
a fork is not the use case here. So repeating that phrase is meaningless.
reply
Sounds like cope to me