Iām not sure I want to allow all potential LNURL-zap providers to post to paid relays, that defeats the purpose of paid relays.
I can also whitelist pubkeys without requiring zap providerās permission. Your choice would be to opt out of connecting to paid relays to send zaps.
Iām sure weāll find a way forward where people see their zaps and paid relays donāt suffer from potential spam.
I mean I am happy to give you the Alby zap pubkey.
but imo that defeats a bit the purpose of the zaps.
So paid relays would require their users to use certain zap providers - and will such likely never allow users to use their own setup to receive the zaps.
If a user runs their own umbrel node for example, they will not be able to use that one to receive sats.
A list of zap providers that paid relays could whitelist is not difficult.
Having gates on services isnāt a bad thing. Iāve signed up to every paid relay for https://relay.exchange to make sure they all work at least, theyād take this no problem.
centralized whitelists are typically never difficult. it's the decentralized things that are hard, and we want to be decentralized here.
So imo the goal should be that users can use any zap provider and that zap providers do not have to pay any (potentially expensive) relay out there to work.
Limiting this by design leads to centralization which would defeat the purpose.
Yes, thatās a good perspective. Whitelists would be a weak point.
Is it just Lightning development needed then? Itās key here imo
no, its not lightning only nostr specific.
agree #[8] really nailed this viewpoint
make sense - a lot dummy user cry abt nanny centralized free services getting from twiiter fukkbook toktok etc.. freedom comes at cost - build/pay/select - users here free to choose based on their choice - i will never use damus for example - trying to write to write NIP n BIP to fit certain group of users habit dnot make universal rule - had honest friendunpaid twitter user crying 2FA locked šŖ
