Yaacov Akiba Slama <[email protected]> writes: > So we can integrate between them without intermixing the semantics of > the protocols but we need only to define the interaction points between > them. > > In the previous worflow, the seller can for instance add in the LN > invoice H(Quotation (UBL)||Order(UBL)||Prepayment Invoice(UBL)), and use > H(Receipt(UBL)) as preimage. With such a workflow, the UBL documents are > cryptographically tied to the LN payment. > > So the property of UBL of not being machine *handlable* is not altered > but the LN cryptographic properties are still used to tie the workflow. > > Am I missing something?
Sure, people can do this today: simply set your `d` field to "UBL: <hash>". But it provide what we want from offers: 1. Does not provide a "static invoice" flow. 2. Does not provide a donation flow. 3. Does not provide a method for wallets to do recurrence. 4. Does not provide end-to-end over LN (i.e. no HTTP(s) requests). Cheers, Rusty. _______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
