Matt Corallo
Matt Corallo
Indeed. I'll clean it up if/when the maintainer shows up again :)
Huh, interesting, just checked my LDK sample (with the network graph wiped and with one loaded from disk) and I don't see it :/.
There is currently no such standard. You're welcome to suggest one and work with Lightning wallets to get it supported.
I wouldn't bother specifying it in the `lightning:` URI space, since that's increasingly being replaced with unified `bitcoin:` BIP 21 links. Also, URIs should be in the format namespace:path?param1=value1¶m2=value2&.... I'd...
Why not `bitcoin:?ln1=...&ln2=...&lightning=fallback`? I'm not sure how wallets today handle this, but you could use this with a fallback BOLT11 to a node which will relay the payment onwards to...
What's the URI size limit? At 135 invoices you may need to move to some kind of intent API.
Got the same error (backtrace is identical, +/-) with a static binary (though with pthread, and maybe a few other bits linked in). [bug80_target.gz](https://github.com/shellphish/driller/files/3952803/bug80_target.gz)
It's also some random token/crypto thing (even though it's well hidden on their website). All their prices are nonsense, you have to buy their token first.
Any reason not to upgrade to Ruby 3.0 instead? It seems most (even rolling-release) distros don't have 3.1 available yet, and even 3.0 is only in the faster distros -...
Sure but if you're already out of time on the backwards path you run that risk anyway? We're thinking about this on the LDK end and I'm a bit torn...