Nostr Web Client

It went nowhere. I think nostr:nprofile1qqsrhuxx8l9ex335q7he0f09aej04zpazpl0ne2cgukyawd24mayt8gprfmhxue69uhhq7tjv9kkjepwve5kzar2v9nzucm0d5hszxmhwden5te0wfjkccte9emk2um5v4exucn5vvhxxmmd9uq3xamnwvaz7tmhda6zuat50phjummwv5hsx7c9z9 and others believe kind1 should take an important role on the spec. I completely disagree. We focus way too much on kind 1 build ups. De-emphacizing from the spec could be a good move.

NIP01 should focus on the web of trust aspects of kind 1, not on the small notes itself.

fiatjaf 1y ago

I'm not against the rework in theory, I just thought it looked bad to move things like that, but now I'm thinking it could be good to do it.

But I thought you were a guy who talked only about what exists and not what should exist, given that you should be talking about the fact that kind:1 does have an important place in Nostr.

In my article from before I just acknowledged that and said that instead of trying to fight against it we should embrace it and make kind:1 it the central discovery/public-square/stream of Nostr from where all other use cases can flow and take a life of their own.

So if you're publishing pictures with Olas, for example, you could publish some just for people who are following you specifically in the photo apps, but sometimes quote some wrapped in a kind:1 so others can know that you also have this alternative photo stream, it's like when people posted a link on Twitter to their blog post or article written somewhere else or podcast etc.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Vitor Pamplona 1y ago

Sure if you are tied to only the most used NIP, then it makes sense to keep kind 1 there. But if you are also seeing a lot of other applications being fully developed that don't even think about a kind1 post, that is evidence that there is more to it and that the kind 1focus is just getting in the way.

I do think both are true: We are mostly focused on kind1s right now and also we have apps that kind 1 doesn't even make any sense.

fiatjaf 1y ago

Well, if kind 1 doesn't make sense for some apps I don't see that as a problem at all and I am not trying to force those apps to use kind 1.

But many other use cases can have their own independent existence but also use kind 1 for signaling/discovery -- most notably the common "social" things like long-form events, video events, song events, podcast events, picture events, livestreaming events, calendar events, perhaps even nip29 group events.

Vitor Pamplona 1y ago

Nip 01 is mandatory. Which means kind 1s are mandatory. If you think it is optional, the text is wrong.

All other use cases were using kind1 for replies but now they are all moving to use nip22. Kind 1 is really only for Twitter-like clients. 90% of nostr doesn't need to bother by kind1.

fiatjaf 1y ago

I agree that kind 1 must not be considered mandatory.

fiatjaf 1y ago

nostr:nevent1qqsf6huzxgzau4saan8ygc086yrdk9wq75hdeh0zgv5wec4m9lls6dgprdmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuam9wd6x2unwvf6xxtnrdakj7zg4gj3

Vitor Pamplona 1y ago

Then, let's remove it from NIP-01.

AsaiToshiya 1y ago

I really hope nostr:npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z's PR will be merged.

https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/1076

fiatjaf 1y ago

OK, time to get that thing moving again.

Josua Schmid 1y ago

So you would have a reference to other NIPs in NIP-01? Like for implementation of kind 1?

This makes sense. A base protocol without a specific application. One had to look up another NIP to get something real working. So NIP-01 would lose one aspect of its beauty: it‘s self-contained and complete. At least for the „SMS-case“ in a world with „internet“.