The Problem
Asking users to choose between on-chain and lightning payments can be confusing — but it’s been necessary to maintain interoperability between wallets.
Most wallets either take a lightning-only or on-chain-only approach. Wallets that support both use a tab or toggle for switching between the two formats.
What if we could simplify this so the user doesn’t have to make these choices? And how might we do this in a way that maintains interoperability between wallets?
A Solution
BIP21 Payment URIs with an optional lightning parameter
BIP-21 defines a URI scheme for creating a “payment link”. By default, it includes an on-chain address to send funds to.
BIP-21 was designed to be extensible. The spec allows for optional parameters in the URI. Why can’t one of these parameters be used to include a BOLT 11 invoice, or even a BOLT 12 offer in the future?
https://bitcoinqr.dev/
Anything wrong?
