LUD-XX Webhook notification for a third-party in pay protocol - #147
Draft
hsjoberg wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
LUD-XX Webhook notification for a third-party in pay protocol#147hsjoberg wants to merge 1 commit into
hsjoberg wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
pseudozach
reviewed
Apr 12, 2022
pseudozach
reviewed
Apr 12, 2022
hsjoberg
force-pushed
the
webhook-notification
branch
from
April 14, 2022 12:58
4eb76be to
7d24b51
Compare
| `WALLET` `MAY` inform the user if the `webhookAllowed` response in the first | ||
| wallet does not exist. | ||
|
|
||
| `WALLET` `MUST` disallow payments if `webhookAllowed` is set to `false`. |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what should the wallet do if the webhook param was in the lnurl request but the first callback didn't contain the webhookAllowed param
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@benthecarman Hmm yeah that would mean that the third party server is trying to use a feature that is not supported by the LNURL-pay service.
I think failing makes the most sense in that situation.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That should probably be specified
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed, I'll address this.
hsjoberg
marked this pull request as draft
September 20, 2022 18:22
andycreed0x
approved these changes
Dec 24, 2025
| `lnurl1dp68gurn8ghj7er0d4skjm3wvdhk6tmsv9un7am9vf5x7mmt846xs6tjv3cxzun50yhxxmmd9amk2cngdahkkxmx8qr` | ||
|
|
||
| Translated Lightning Address: | ||
| `lnurlp://domain.com/.well-known/lnurlp/user?webhook=thirdparty.com/webhook` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| `lnurlp://domain.com/.well-known/lnurlp/user?webhook=thirdparty.com/webhook` | |
| `lnurlp://domain.com/.well-known/lnurlp/<username>?webhook=thirdparty.com/webhook` |
andrerfneves
added
contested
andrerfneves
changed the title
andrerfneves
removed
the
contested
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I submit this pull request in a friendly manner as an alternative to the LUD-22 proposal.
The reason is that I think that LUD-22 as it stands right now worsens the user experience in a way I don't think is sound, it does not feel LNURL-ish.
LUD-22 strips the user out of LNURL-pay and they're only given a BOLT11. Unfortunately due to the way BOLT11 and LNURL-pay works, the only thing they get is a payment hash.
In LUD-23, the user and the wallet would still experience LNURL-pay as they normally do without a webhook.
The user possibly also opt out of the sending the third party notification if the wallet software makes this option available for them (possible privacy benefit).