Using amber for a bunker is wack. The point of amber is an entirely offline signer.
Discussion
bunkers are where the signer makes an outbound connection to subscribe to a specific event kind from a relay and it signs and sends them, i forget how that is secured but i don't think the relay can send an authorised signing request from just anyone, only the user who's set up the connection
Yep, and you have fine-grained permissions to control what the connected app can sign. Amber supports both offline (NIP-55) and online (NIP-46) modes.
i want to see more use of ephemeral event kinds the way bunkers do it...
in my nostr relay chat design (maybe nip-79 when i get to implementing it) i want to shift the event storage to a "chanserv" style client bot to exert finer control by relay administrators without having to clutter the relay with these subprotocol features... stuff like seeing old history and searching old history and so forth, in a separate box to the relay, and also for stuff like nickserv where you can do some other neat things, it will be like IRC with sasl auth but better, and easier to join relays into a cluster and have the chan/nickservs connecting to them for redundancy
Yeah, but you're forcing me to give the app a network connection, which I refuse to do.
yeah, i agree, idk if android has a distinction between localhost only and general network, so the devs of amber should make a proper switch for disabling the bunker since i think you have to allow it "network connection" permission
i personally still have yet to use a bunker at all
yeah, really there should be an explicit permission required to allow two apps to open sockets to each other, on both sides, also, to make sure nobody is messing around