<unnamed>

Public Key

npub17kxcmv2v95tlmhupv768wal5ukzwycqeewc8nq5ghyp6ys7a466qrkudlg

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs0trvdk9xz69lam7qk0drhwl6wtp8zvqvuhvres2ytjqazg0w6adqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsux6ly6

Publishing to

relay.snort.social

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Last Notes

2023-06-09 13:05:06 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2022-02-02
📝 Original message:
Hi folks, Danny (on the TrelisDev email) and I have built out an MVP for an
invoicing tool that issues an LN invoice and then pays it out to a
merchant's BTC account.
A few things I'm looking to get input on right now. Your assistance - or
tips on people to talk to - would be greatly appreciated:
*1. Lightning to Bitcoin Cash-out*
The reason for taking this approach is that it was difficult to find a way
to support lightning to lightning payments in a non-custodial way. The
options we saw were:
1. Trampoline node (like Phoenix) - requiring management of liquidity for
our node, which is a pain (and may or may not be custodial?)
2. LN bits approach - which is custodial.
Obviously cashing LN out to BTC isn't ideal (due to LN fees + Boltz 0.5%
swap fee + Bitcoin on-chain fee), particularly because of the on-chain fee,
but at least we can do it more non-custodially.
I am interested in better technical approaches. Ideally, we'd like to
non-custodially facilitate lightning invoice generation (without the
merchant having to set up a node with a BTC pay server type approach = too
complicated for most merchants imo).
*3. Bitcoin Price Volatility*
Generally, I'm skeptical a tool like this can get a lot of adoption because
Bitcoin price right now is too volatile to be useful to customers and
merchants. I guess there is a bounty for building contracts for difference
(illegal in the US) that would support a dollar-pegged asset in lightning
channels, but I'm guessing that's 6-12 months away from being usable.
Ideas on approaches for addressing this would be appreciated.
Cheers, Ronan
~~~
P.S. I have two less technical things I'm thinking about. I know this is a
dev thread, but if anyone has reccs or folks to talk to that would be much
appreciated.
*a. Regulatory Status*
I would like to understand whether merchants making use of Trelis software
to build a payments page brings Trelis under regulation, and what options
there are for handling this in the case of:
a) just for providing the software
b) specifically with our current implementation, where the merchant uses
our api to have Boltz.exchange create a bitcoin lightning invoice that
swaps to a bitcoin payment to the merchant's wallet.
*b. Mitigating Fraud*
I am concerned both about fraudulent merchants creating payment links
*and* about
the image/brand of Trelis vis-a-vis the merchants that it serves. Broadly,
I see two extremes for the approach Trelis could take:
1) No Verification
~ in which case there is probably an adverse selection problem for the
types of merchant that would use Trelis.
2) Use Verification:
~ in which case Trelis needs to make moral judgements around what types of
businesses to support. To a degree, we already have a layer of this by
requiring login with gmail, and could progressively build on this.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20220202/f09bf3c8/attachment.html>

2023-06-09 13:04:51 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2021-12-17
📝 Original message:
Hi ZmnSCPxj,
So, are you saying there needs to be a new command "signfakeinvoice" at the
protocol level?
If that was there, how much work/hours would it be to build the poor man's
rendez-vous at the application level?
If the above were to be implemented, when the payer pays the invoice, it's
then automatically split and sent to two (or more) recipients?
Lastly, would it make more sense to have split payments at the protocol
level?
Thanks, Ronan
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 11:44 PM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com> wrote:
> Good morning William,
>
>
> > Has anyone coded up a 'Poor man's rendez-vous' demo yet? How hard would
> > it be, could it be done with a clightning plugin perhaps?
>
> Probably not *yet*; it needs each intermediate payee (i.e. the one that is
> not the last one) to sign an invoice for which it does not know the
> preimage.
> Maybe call such a command `signfakeinvoice`.
>
> However, if a command to do the above is implemented (it would have to
> generate and sign the invoice, but not insert it into the database at all),
> then intermediate payees can use `htlc_accepted` hook for the "rendez-vous".
>
> So to generate the invoice:
>
> * Arrange the payees in some agreed fixed order.
> * Last payee generates a normal invoice.
> * From last payee to second, each one:
> * Passes its invoice to the previous payee.
> * The previous payee then creates its own signed invoice with
> `signfakeinvoice` to itself, adding its payout plus a fee budget, as well
> as adding its own delay budget.
> * The previous payee plugin stores the next-payee invoice and the
> details of its own invoice to db, such as by `datastore` command.
> * The first payee sends the sender the invoice.
>
> On payment:
>
> * The sender sends the payment to the first hop.
> * From first payee to second-to-last:
> * Triggers `htlc_accepted` hook, and plugin checks if the incoming
> payment has a hash that is in this scheme stored in the database.
> * The plugin gathers `htlc_accepted` hook invocations until they sum up
> to the expected amount (this handles multipath between payees).
> * The plugin marks that it has gathered all `htlc_accepted` hooks for
> that hash in durable storage a.k.a. `datastore` (this handles a race
> condition where the plugin is able to respond to some `htlc_accepted`
> hooks, but the node is restarted before all of them were able to be
> recorded by C-Lightning in its own database --- this makes the plugin skip
> the "gathering" step above, once it has already gathered them all before).
> * The plugin checks if there is already an outgoing payment for that
> hash (this handles the case where our node gets restarted in the meantime
> --- C-Lightning will reissue `htlc_accepted` on startup)
> * If the outgoing payment exists and is pending, wait for it to
> resolve to either success or failure.
> * If the outgoing payment exists and succeeded, resolve all the
> gathered `htlc_accepted` hooks.
> * If the outgoing payment exists and failed, fail all the gathered
> `htlc_accepted` hooks.
> * Otherwise, perform a `pay`, giving `maxfeepercent` and `maxdelay`
> based on its fee budget and delay budget.
> When the `pay` succeeds or fails, propagate it to the gathered
> `htlc_accepted` hooks.
> * The last payee just receives a normal payment using the normal
> invoice-receive scheme.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20211217/f105a9e5/attachment.html>

2023-06-09 13:04:49 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2021-12-15
📝 Original message:
Hi folks, I'm Ronan - based in Dublin and building Trelis.com (simple
payment links to accept Lightning).
I'm wondering if there is a way to create an invoice that splits the
payment to two lightning addresses?
If not, what would be required to develop this?
* A protocol change?
* Could it be built with the current protocol (I see an app on LN Bits to
split but it doesn't seem to work).
Many thanks, Ronan
Ronan McGovern
www.Trelis.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20211215/accda31a/attachment.html>