Replying to Avatar ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ

oh

is it countersigned? sorta seems like it should be
Avatar
Silberengel 1y ago

Well, they could also issue you a confirmation of the same type, right? You could even include something similar in the content field, or have a special tag, to show that you did it in a coordinated manner. Or do something involving puzzles on your smartphone or QR codes, or include a selfie together, or whatnot. The client can come up with whatever method they want.

I tried to leave it implementation-open, as the idea is that people come up with a bunch of different kinds of confirmation, so that every npub has multiple possibilities for being confirmed, and then evaluating npubs decide which kinds of confirmation they'd accept. You could even use this for 2FA or something.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Silberengel 1y ago

I see it as a further step away from The Tyranny of Follows and toward npub-tailored WoT metrics. Like the next step, after the relationship status NIP.

Avatar
ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

ah ok, yeah, i guess "i saw person at place" can be one sided versus "i met person at place" which implies two sides

it's a type of attestation i guess, but i think there is an issue about its polarity here too? denial versus confirmation?

Avatar
Silberengel 1y ago

Ah, you mean, the other npub should be able to "+" or "-" vote on confirmations they receive? 🤔

Like, "No, don't trust this guy, he's a crazy stalker!" 😅

Avatar
Silberengel 1y ago

Would that be like a 19831 countersign/denial reply to a 1983 event?

Avatar
ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

does it have to use a separate kind? can't you just add an "e" tag and use the content field for +/-

Avatar
Silberengel 1y ago

Okay, but in a content field? Wouldn't it be better in a cosign tag, or something?

Avatar
ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

nah, agreement, or confirmation, would be this event kind with an "e" tag with the value (second field) of the original testimony

also, i'd say what you are digging at is more like the law concept of testimony, ie, a testament, but attestation is more palatable to the woke mules of satan

Avatar
ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

oh, also, why in the content field? what else would match up for this place... claim content "i was here" disagreement "-" or confirmation "+" no need to add more than that to it "i agree/disagree" and if there is no "e" tag then it's an Original Claim

Avatar
Silberengel 1y ago

Well, I was thinking you could actually respond. 😂 Like how I sometimes respond to zap comments.

Avatar
ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

well, maybe just add that the first character is + or - to signify agreement or disagreement, and then if anything else, a space first

Avatar
ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

i don't see any reason why to expand it more than that, to allow other signifiers, just stick with one simple one less bullshit faulty implementation problems

even you can ignore the whitespace idea, but i think a space is a good one, broadening anything is a nightmare... + or - and then a space character if anything else comes after, and the rest is parsed as a comment that humans might want to read

Avatar
Silberengel 1y ago

I decided to go full "you ain't gonna need it" and just have a +/-

Avatar
Silberengel 1y ago

Ah, an attestation "Saw him at Nostriga!" and a confirmation "Yeah, it was great! Hope to see you at Nostradam!"

Nice. 🤌🏼

Avatar
ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

keep it simple

pay no attention to the c++ and javascript and rust programmers ideas about adding complexity to your spec

Avatar
Silberengel 1y ago

changed it to:

"meetup : the npub was seen or interacted-with, in person, at a real-life event"

Avatar
Silberengel 1y ago

Is "attestation" clearer wording than "confirmation"? It sort of is, isn't it?

I carried confirmation over from my article, as I get the idea from the 6 confirmation concept.

Avatar
ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

i think attestation is probably the best... confirm has an agreement implicit in it