What exactly is needed for this to leave alpha status?

[Kixunil]

I'm looking into using Transmuter to send funds however, I was not confident to try it with live funds so far. The README still says it's alpha, which is a bit surprising after such a long time.

What exactly is needed to be resolved for Transmuter to at least reach beta? Is there a way I can help?

[Kukks]

You can certainly use it in production. I stuck with the alpha tag because there is functionality which I'm not happy with and want to remove/re-do. For example, I have been waiting on GreenFIeld API to progress a bit more so that:

• Emails can be sent through existing configuration on a btcpay server/store
• Wallet management & tx detection can be done through BTCPay (to avoid storing priv keys on both services)
• LN management can be done through, btcpay.. etc

Additionally, I feel that the UI may be too scary for the majority of users.

Since we are looking into adding an extension architecture for BTCPay, I'm also considering moving the core engine in transmuter to BTCPay. This way, I would not need to wait on API development, have easier UI integration for stores, not need to redevelop existing features etc

[Kukks]

TL;DR: Transmuter works, loads of people actually use it, but I can't promise I won't break it. Alpha fits with that description IMO

[Kixunil]

OK, that sounds acceptable to me, thanks!

TBH, I quite like it being a standalone service. Might still be useful for people who don't need BTCPay but want to automate something. Would be nice if BTCPay wasn't a hard dependency. (And totally OK if BTPay extends the features in some way.)

[Kukks]

OK, that sounds acceptable to me, thanks!

TBH, I quite like it being a standalone service. Might still be useful for people who don't need BTCPay but want to automate something. Would be nice if BTCPay wasn't a hard dependency. (And totally OK if BTPay extends the features in some way.)

I understand. I just don't think I have the time capacity to keep mirroring and maintaining two codebases that have similar inner feature-sets and are almost always used together. I think it's easier that everyone deploys BTCPay, and then just uses the Transmuter part of it only

[Kixunil]

Interesting, would it still be a huge effort if the common code was moved into a library?

[Kukks]

That's unrealistic: it would add more overhead to working on btcpay and the UI would still end up duplicated.

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, 13:35 Martin Habovštiak, notifications@github.com wrote:

Interesting, would it still be a huge effort if the common code was moved into a library?

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/btcpayserver/btcTransmuter/issues/75#issuecomment-709224820, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAN357W2EQJS6WTR42UPL23SK3NADANCNFSM4SQHCJSQ .

[Kixunil]

OK, thanks for explaining!

[Kixunil]

Thinking about it a bit more, separating them could significantly improve security as vulnerabilities in BTCPay would not affect Transmuter. A more paranoid user could even put Transmuter behind secondary authentication (e.g. using Nginx) without preventing public from entering BTCPay.

Is it worth reconsidering?