[Feature] Client for NIP-47 Nostr Wallet Connect #666

New issue

Open

opened 2024-03-03 10:28:14 +13:00 by bu5hm4nn · 4 comments

bu5hm4nn commented

2024-03-03 10:28:14 +13:00

(Migrated from github.com)

The mechanism is similar to NIP-46. Gossip would be a client to wallet hosted elsewhere. For example alby.com supports this. This would be the easiest way to integrate a wallet for zapping.

"This NIP describes a way for clients to access a remote Lightning wallet through a standardized protocol. Custodians may implement this, or the user may run a bridge that bridges their wallet/node and the Nostr Wallet Connect protocol." https://nostr-nips.com/nip-47 The mechanism is similar to NIP-46. Gossip would be a client to wallet hosted elsewhere. For example alby.com supports this. This would be the easiest way to integrate a wallet for zapping.

ralyodio commented

2024-05-08 18:41:13 +12:00

(Migrated from github.com)

looking for this too.

mikedilger commented

2024-05-11 11:14:02 +12:00

(Migrated from github.com)

For some time I've been considering removing zaps from gossip. I don't want to go down for being a money transmitter. This kind of feature is going the wrong way IMHO. Gossip is not a bitcoin technology, it is a chat program. I resisted zaps in the first place but got a lot of pressure from all the big names. Now the legal risks are rising. I'm sure you think this isn't even close to a legal risk, but I am not a lawyer and I can't tell, and anything having to do with transferring money or money like stuff risks the ire of the US government. Not an opponent I want to tangle with.

harrymmmm commented

2024-06-09 09:18:08 +12:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Is there a branch with code for testing this yet?
I'd even be happy with a patch to add manually before building.
Not sure of the politics of this, but how about a fork of the code maintained by someone more anonymous?

Is there a branch with code for testing this yet? I'd even be happy with a patch to add manually before building. Not sure of the politics of this, but how about a fork of the code maintained by someone more anonymous?

mikedilger commented

2024-06-09 17:08:39 +12:00

(Migrated from github.com)

You can do anything you want in a fork. I think that's a good solution. Just maintain it downstream. Maybe then the zaps can be maintained in that fork too.

If most people want the bitcoin features (I'm guessing among the current user base they will), then that means the packaging and release of the fork will be necessary... maybe then I can stop doing the packaging of the upstream (I hate packaging and release).

You can do anything you want in a fork. I think that's a good solution. Just maintain it downstream. Maybe then the zaps can be maintained in that fork too. If most people want the bitcoin features (I'm guessing among the current user base they will), then that means the packaging and release of the fork will be necessary... maybe then I can stop doing the packaging of the upstream (I hate packaging and release).