Conversation
e94c13f to
650917c
Compare
Merged
dedd958 to
6d55e4a
Compare
6d55e4a to
a907cde
Compare
Member
Author
|
@robbiehanson the last commit contains a small change when BIP 353 addresses are used: they must be verified after fetching the invoice. Note that this isn't really used by Phoenix right now, as we directly include our offer instead of including our BIP 353 address. |
Add support for contacts as specified in bLIP 42. Contacts are mutually authenticated using a 32-bytes random secret generated when first adding a node to our contacts. When paying contacts, we include our own payment information to allow them to pay us back and us to their contacts. The benefit of this design is that offers stay private by default (they don't include any contact information). It's only when we pay someone we trust that we reveal contact information (which they are free to ignore). The drawback of this design is that if when both nodes independently add each other to their contacts list, they generate a different contact secret: users must manually associate incoming payments to an existing contact to correctly identify incoming payments (by storing multiple secrets for such contacts). This also happens when contacts use multiple wallets, which will all use different contact secrets. I think this is an acceptable trade-off to preserve privacy by default. More details in the bLIP: lightning/blips#42
When including a BIP 353 HRN, we also require including a signature of the `invoice_request` using one of the keys from the offer stored in the BIP 353 DNS record. We only add the BIP 353 HRN to our contacts list after verifying that it matches the offer we retrieved.
25ab7ed to
75fafd7
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Add support for contacts as specified in bLIP 42. Contacts are mutually authenticated using a 32-bytes random secret generated when first adding a node to our contacts. When paying contacts, we include our own payment information to allow them to pay us back and us to their contacts.
The benefit of this design is that offers stay private by default (they don't include any contact information). It's only when we pay someone we trust that we reveal contact information (which they are free to ignore).
The drawback of this design is that if when both nodes independently add each other to their contacts list, they generate a different contact secret: users must manually associate incoming payments to an existing contact to correctly identify incoming payments (by storing multiple secrets for such contacts). This also happens when contacts use multiple wallets, which will all use different contact secrets. I think this is an acceptable trade-off to preserve privacy by default.
More details in the bLIP: lightning/blips#42