Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-12-27 📝 Original message: On 12/2/21 21:59, Rusty ...

📅 Original date posted:2021-12-27
📝 Original message:
On 12/2/21 21:59, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> writes:
> In bolt12, we have the additional problem for the tipping case: each
> invoice contains an amount, so you can't preprint amountless invoices.
> (This plugs a hole in bolt11 for this case, where you get a receipt but
> no amount!).
>
> However, I think the best case is a generic authorization mechanism:
>
> 1. The offer contains a fallback node.
> 2. Fallback either returns you an invoice signed by the node you expect, *or*
> one signed by itself and an authorization from the node you expect.
> 3. The authorization might be only for a particular offer, or amount, or
> have an expiry. *handwave*.
>
> This lets the user choose the trust model they want. The fallback node
> may also provide an onion message notification service when the real
> node comes back, to avoid polling.

Missed this mail, but, right, good point about amounts. Indeed, having cross-signing by the fallback
node seems like a good idea. For the tipping use-case, allowing a BOLT-12 response with no amount
included under the signature seems fine (with a signed amount from the fallback node).

Matt