moving kind 1 out of the original spec is confusing and a mistake.
Discussion
Do you think it would ever be pulled?
no but the intent is to de-emphasize it on the basis that it’s confusing to devs. apparently people are trying to stuff usecases into kind 1 that some folks don’t like.
I strongly disagree with all of the above.
I don’t want my notes to be edited by other people to create supposedly safe experience for others. If plebs dislike my language they are free to unfollow or mute me. In a collaborative setting, I can understand that. But my notes are ME shouting into the fois with my tinfoil hat on.
I don’t even know if the PR has anything to do with that. It’s just from my last exchange with Vit.
nah this PR is just de-emphasizing kind 1. the editing thing is totally separate.
What is the advantage Vit seeks? Why don’t you like it, what does it imply?
nostr is primarily about Notes (kind 1). that’s the primary use-case. the proposal is to de-emphasize those text notes in the base spec and instead lump kind 1 into the pool of a zillion other kinds.
I don’t like that because in my opinion it obscures the main value prop on the implied basis that devs can’t RTFM.
Got it. I don’t see kind1 as the main value prop though. I see it as the communication layer for something far greater. Data resilience via relays is the main value proposition in my eyes.
agreed, the decentralized relay architecture is clearly the core of it but it’s only useful with some consensus around the events we’re sending. and currently there are a zillion different event types and growing. it’s that complexity and sprawl that concerns me. de-emphasizing kind 1 pushes further into that opaque future.
did you know that a recent study showed the average undergraduate IQ has dropped from 120 to 101 in the last 20 years?
It made zoomers and the universities so mad they fought to suppress it. But the truth is out.
who are “some folks” and what are the use cases? Also, hello 👋 and happy Sunday 🙂
Just stop calling nostr an open protocol and call it the nostr:npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z platform.
Funny. I am a kind 1 developer. If this was my protocol, I would force everyone to use kind 1s.
The PR is pitching the exact opposite of my interests. To make kind1 optional so that other apps don't feel obligated to use it.
Ok. we’ll have to take you at your word.
It would be a shame if nostr stopped having a simple text kind that people without bloated JavaScript addictions could use to build all kinds of interesting small web things.
That's why we need to make it optional. Because if we force it, everybody will add their things to kind1 and it will get more and more complicated over time.
it’s optional in so far as you’re not building an interoperable text based program. but I don’t think relegating kind 1 into just another event kind in a list of a thousand others is a good move. we should emphasize kind 1 as the default and if you’re doing something outside of text based notes, then check out this massive list of other schemes. but don’t obscure the default.
There are dozens of text kinds already. And it will only grow over time. The idea that people must use kind1 for any text based event doesn't not match the reality of Nostr apps. It's way too general of a statement.
I also don't think we should emphasize kind 1s at all. We are just jeopardizing ourselves when we do so while making things harder to understand for newcomers.
And that comes from a kind 1 dev.
I disagree. de-emphasizing kind 1 would make getting started for newcomers harder. your justification for de-emphasizing kind 1 is essentially devs can’t RTFM and are abusing kind 1 - you think relegating it to a list of a zillion other kinds is going to improve things?
People shouldnt be forced to start on kind 1. That is bad policy and not very freedom-oriented.
We are going to have a zillion kinds no matter what. That's not a choice.
I think we’re talking past each other. we have different perspectives and I must be poorly articulating mine. but ultimately it doesn’t matter. 🤙
what are you talking about?
nostr itself started on kind1
in fact, nostr kinda IS kind one.
you’re trying to change the whole protocol because you don’t like the content of some kind1 notes? Suggesting kind1 is too confusing?
I really want to understand what you’re saying here because it’s obvious you’re quite brilliant, but I’m missing something. How does the from the text in kind1 takes affect you in any way?
Frknaly, I am not changing anything. Read the PR. I am just changing kind 1 to be optional. It's not really a huge change. The goal is simple: People implement it if they want. I am just opening the way for others apps to come and not feel like they don't belong here.
But yes, kind 1 is also confusing mostly because it so poorly defined. But that's another conversation.
Its interesting... i really want to see what you are seeing, because its obvious youre quite talented.
I want to believe that i am just not getting what you are trying to say.
then i see you say things like this in the same sentence...
"im not changing anything"
"its not a really huge change"
and then an "im just fighting for the outcasts" statement.
you argue like a politician. which makes me think you are either lying to me, or lying to yourself.
but it would seem most everyone is afraid to argue with you in any meaningful way, so ill just state what i am coming away from this with...
your kind one change reminds me of bitcoin side-chains, and seems entirely unnecessary. and i was not convinced that you do not have ulterior motives, which bums me out.
but time reveals all. and if you were right, and i see it, i will thank you and apologize.
but if you undermine nostr for your own sake, and bring harm and inequality to it....
your name will become a proverb.
Well, you are the first to ever call me a politician. Most people think I am way too aggressive to be a politician. And I really don't mind saying things that piss people off, as long as they are true. This PR is just another one of these cases.
I dont necessarily disagree, but your statement has some interesting built in presumptions.
Who is “we” and who is “their” and why are they different?
Since this “complication” you speak of will only be in the form of text, how does it affect you in any way that is different than nostr just growing? Why do you want the option to route some peoples kind1s and not others when what is in them doesn’t affect you at all?
"We" is the NIP repo, which provides guidance on how to use nostr. It's not a spec, but a description of what is happening in the Nostr ecosystem.
Lots of clients have proposed HTML encoding in kind 1. Multiple issues are asking for markdown in kind 1. It's just about time for a new client to come and start putting other syntaxes in kind 1. People can add and modify tags for their needs, breaking the past, like what the folks in the PR were proposing.
If we insist on getting every new client, we are just creating more problems for ourselves.
I am fine with it because I will integrate everything that shows up, but many other clients won't be able to manage it. So, I think it is better if we make it optional and more specific to Twitter like posts.