> If _my_ trust network wants "npub's mom + wife have the say over npub's new nsec", then the way _we_ use the protocol should allow for that.

You haven't responded to the meat of this part, but I think it's because I didn't explain it enough:

I think you're incorrect that the nsec is the ultimate source of identity. *I* am the ultimate source of identity, and the nsec is a layer I use to connect with other people. the same ultimate source of identity can use a subsequent nsec. operating at the nsec-layer then sure, nostr doesn't have an easy solution - but I'm operating a layer deeper, at the same layer as the ultimate human source of identity. That's why I'm saying I prefer "trust-maxxing".

Bob is a human and Alice is a human. They like communicating digitally. They both agree that Bob's human family and Alice's human family are great sources to rely on - in human land - for information about each other.

Bob loses his nsec. Bummer. But it's just a tool - Bob and Alice and their families still exist the same, human way. So Alice points some of her digital tools and particular parts of Bob's family's digital tools and she finds out about Bob's new nsec.

The problem has been solved at the deeper, human layer. Our tools are just along for the ride; and they answer to us, not the other way around.

I don't need a blockchain telling me what's true, and I don't want a protocol interrupting the way us humans prefer to interact.