Lightning Address Inter-op
UMA addresses are valid Lightning Addresses when the leading $ is stripped. Receiving VASPs who choose to support plain LNURL-PAY transactions (which is a subset of UMA) should treat an incoming LNURLP request to a receiver without a leading $ as a request to pay the receiver directly via LNURL-PAY. This way, users can still have a single user name compatible with both UMA and LNURL, while keeping a clear distinction between the two for cases where a VASP has to understand regulatory requirements.
Mhh, so anyone with UMA could use Lightning directly if the recipient supports it.
However, this is a BIG if since I guess for tradfi (for which this seems to be built with all this compliance architecture), compliance providers are pretty important. So I am worried that the plan of UMA is to embrace, extend and extinguish lightning addresses when most people use UMA and the sender stops supporting LNURL.
If this is built for tradfi and compliance in mind, it doesn't make sense for them to allow sending to someone which isn't using UMA.
reply
reply
So this means I have accepted the truth?
reply
STAY AWAY FROM THESE FUCKERS! You have been warned.
reply
105 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 25 Jun
Nu is the world’s largest digital banking platform outside of Asia, serving over 100 million customers across Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia.
100 million customers is no joke.
reply
it's a regulatory trap
reply
Fuck UMA, a profane use of LNURL, just a walled garden own circus, there is NO interaction with other nodes unless you comply... there is NO difference with VISA/MASTERCARD channels.
reply