Subnostr

This is great! going to try it also. nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 I see the connection string is a bit different than I remember when integrating Pablo’s version, does it work the same or is this a different spec?

It's the same. We must agree on a connection string. I think people like the "bunker://" notation, so we must convince nostr:npub1l2vyh47mk2p0qlsku7hg0vn29faehy9hy34ygaclpn66ukqp3afqutajft to implement it.

But we should also implement the NIP-05 custodial flow he is working on. I am not sure what are the necessary changes, but should be minimal.

Please Login to reply.

No replies yet.