search

lnurl / luds

lnurl specifications
590 stars 140 forks source link

Use lightning address to initiate a lnurl-auth login? #196

Open huumn opened 1 year ago

huumn commented 1 year ago

Feel free to close this if this has been discussed already.

I'm seeing 1 or more email sign up failures on SN per day from users attempting to use their lightning address as an email address.

It got me thinking it'd be nice if this initiated an lnurl-auth login without the QR crap. E.g. send the lnurl-auth challenge, callback, etc. to the domain of the lightning address, and have the service at domain go through the lnurl-auth flow from there.

This would be particularly nice for services that send tips to lightning addresses as the user could auth and specify their preferred receiving wallet simultaneously.

A few things occurred to me after posting this. lnurl-auth via lightning address will need prompting in the wallet. If we are okay with prompting via lightning address, perhaps we could also support lnurl-withdrawals via lightning address. In this way, you'd be able to provide most of a wallet's functionality through the lightning address alone.

Maybe this a dumb idea.

ekzyis commented 9 months ago

First time I am seeing this, surprised there were no comments on this here. And I don't think it's because of this:

Maybe this a dumb idea.

Haven't read this in a way such that I can comment on this feature in a productive way yet. But will comment when I did :)

Might make sense to post this on SN again? It's been almost a year it was posted.

/cc @fiatjaf

huumn commented 9 months ago

I still see this daily. Often multiple times per day now.

fiatjaf commented 9 months ago

I think something like this might make more sense: https://njump.me/note1crl44xk24yc2ym5xlyyfjdeumxueyguzxetseg8r0prqzmqts47sghnmgp

ekzyis commented 8 months ago

I think something like this might make more sense: https://njump.me/note1crl44xk24yc2ym5xlyyfjdeumxueyguzxetseg8r0prqzmqts47sghnmgp

Why? For me, this looks like you're just dismissing the proposal because it does not use nostr.

What is the problem with the proposal?

If you mentioned this because you think nostr makes more sense for authentication since lightning is for payments, not authentication, then I agree. But we could just work on both at some point, no? On your proposal and on this proposal here?