Was looking at lightning.pub for the first time. Seems pretty cool. I think NWC is under used within bitcoin as a way to make subscription payments. Think an API that can take a NWC string input and pull a payment from it to pay an invoice or lightning address would be super helpful for businesses to use NWC for monthly payments. Does lightning pub offer something like that?

Thanks - keep up the great work. Appreciate you

You are definitely the superior app for Bitcoiners and the one I recommend. Their limits are super restrictive while yours are fully open. They do beat you on fees for cash balance to lightning payments with their new announcement. If I pay a $25 lightning invoice (~27k sats) - from Cash App, it takes exactly $25 from my cash balance. Strike looks like it’s adding a fee of some kind and taking $25.31 from the cash balance.

Strike has always been competitive on fees. With Cash App launching no fee cash balance to lightning payments, curious of strike will match.

Cash App taking the lead again in bitcoin development is huge! I think limits are still too restricting and would love to see Cash App pay online allow bitcoin payments! Keep up the incredible work!

Thinking something like this. If I run a web app that I want to incorporate lightning subscriptions into. I could collect NWC strings. Then through a lnbits API, be able to pull a payment from one of the NWC strings. Can handle the payment timing on the web app, but the ability to pull payments from a NWC string with lnbits API could be powerful.

Lnbits is the Swiss Army knife of lightning and nostr! One nostr API I’ve noticed missing though is a way to pull payments from a NWC string. It exists as a funding source and the NWC service provider pulls funds from a wallet, but there is no way to pull payments from a NWC string to a lightning address. I think this would be a huge feature for things subscriptions!

Doesn’t this already exist?

Hi Matthew, keep up the great work! Looking back, it seems taproot was what caused a lot of the issues. Instead of taproot being rushed, do you think this is the conversation that should have happened back then? And thus it wouldn’t have gone through being this contentious?

Understandable not to rush a soft fork, but curious of you think it actually makes bitcoin better money or not. The taproot soft fork seemed to have brought all this mess. Why not fix some of it?

I think it was a 1/2 punch. SegWit made it cheap; Taproot made it possible for data to be large.
Without the discount from SegWit, the fees for large images would likely be prohibitive. Without Taproot's relaxed limits, the full image wouldn't fit in a single, standard transaction. I could be wrong

True, but I believe taproot enabled larger images to be stored on the chain and at a cheaper cost, which is why we saw ordinals and the likes take off