On chain mint and melt

[thesimplekid]

Depends on #188

• CDK
• Nutshell
• Nutmix
• goNuts
• cashu-ts

Supersedes #107

[lollerfirst]

NUT-19 says this should be optional, depending on whether or not the MintInfo requires it.

[lollerfirst]

Here as well. It's not clear if this NUT requires a Mint that requires NUT-19 signatures or only supports them.

[lollerfirst]

@thesimplekid Why do we need new NUTs for this? Can't we just add some appendices to NUT-3, NUT-4 and NUT-5 on what additional fields a particular Post{Mint|Melt}OnchainRequest should have?

We can then modify NUT-6 to include information about a particular minting and melting method called btconchain like this:

"nuts": {
    "4": {
      "methods": [
        {
          "method": "bolt11",
          "unit": "sat",
          "min_amount": 0,
          "max_amount": 10000
        },
        {
          "method": "btconchain",
          "unit": "sat",
          "min_amount": 0,
          "max_amount": 10000,
          "min_confirmations": 3,
        }
      ],
      "disabled": false
    },
    "5": {
      "methods": [
        {
          "method": "bolt11",
          "unit": "sat",
          "min_amount": 100,
          "max_amount": 10000
        },
        {
          "method": "btconchain",
          "unit": "sat",
          "min_amount": 0,
          "max_amount": 10000
        }
      ],
      "disabled": false
    },
    ...
  }

[thesimplekid]

@thesimplekid Why do we need new NUTs for this? Can't we just add some appendices to NUT-3, NUT-4 and NUT-5 on what additional fields a particular Post{Mint|Melt}OnchainRequest should have?

We can then modify NUT-6 to include information about a particular minting and melting method called btconchain like this:

I think its a reasonable question, and one way to do it. But I don't really think we should be changing or adding to past nuts. I think it gets confusing, its better to just have new nuts. That being said maybe what id defined in the new nuts could be reduced and and reference the existing nuts and some of it is repetitive. Though I did it this way because this way the nut stands more on its own and you don't have to check another nut as much. But think there are arguments for and against that

[prusnak]

NUTs 3, 4 and 5 are mandatory. Adding optional fields to them feels wrong.

Also on-chain minting has some specifics (and we already see that via quote locking) and therefore I think this deserves another pair of NUTs.

I would like to also see Liquid supported and I feel this should be again another pair of NUTs, although the distinction here is probably not that strong and Liquid support can become a part of the BTC on-chain NUTs.

[elnosh]

Suggested change

	"address": <str>,
	"request": <str>,

since in other places throughout this NUT request is being used rather than address

[elnosh]

This can be moved to the Minting tokens section where this field is used in the request.