Where is this format coming from?
{"username":"_","hex":"134743ca8ad0203b3657c20a6869e64f160ce48ae6388dc1f5ca67f346019ee7"}
It should be something like this:
{
"names": {
"_": "134743ca8ad0203b3657c20a6869e64f160ce48ae6388dc1f5ca67f346019ee7"
}
}
nostr:npub1plstrz6dhu8q4fq0e4rjpxe2fxe5x87y2w6xpm70gh9qh5tt66kqkgkx8j , nostr:npub1v0lxxxxutpvrelsksy8cdhgfux9l6a42hsj2qzquu2zk7vc9qnkszrqj49, nostr:npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z, nostr:npub1n0sturny6w9zn2wwexju3m6asu7zh7jnv2jt2kx6tlmfhs7thq0qnflahe Am I misinterpreting NIP05?
Discussion
Related question: is the use of a “client” tag in notes something that is encouraged / discouraged? Seems like I’ve seen it before, but it’s usually absent.
It would help track down an issue like this. Although perhaps cluttering up notes with anything unnecessary would be a bad habit to get into.
Bad for privacy. Web clients are fine because the key is protected by the extension, not the client. Native clients have to protect the key in their own ways. So, if an attacker knows that the person has a key in a native client, it might look for ways into that specific client's database.
Makes sense
Wow, my mistake. In the last update I mistakenly uploaded something I shouldn't have. Sorry for wasting your time 🙏
Fixed