Replying to Avatar Shawn

No question. This is crucial, hence my question. As it stands, there's no way to know what I'm using and if I should expect it to just work.
Avatar
elsat 10mo ago

I understand and value the experimentation by devs.

I wonder if there is some low effort way to signal what DM standard my intended counterparty prefers.

cc nostr:npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Vitor Pamplona 10mo ago

Yes, clients can look for recent events kinds of each protocol.

But the issue is that all clients must implement all protocols, which is never going to be the case.

Avatar
JeffG 10mo ago

No they don't. Clients should remove NIP-04 right now.

Avatar
fiatjaf 10mo ago

I agree.

Avatar
Vitor Pamplona 10mo ago

I agree they should remove nip-04 support.

I also agree that at this point NIP-17 is the easiest thing for everyone to implement as base.

Not that I think every Nostr client needs DMs. The majority should never code any DM.

Avatar
JeffG 10mo ago

We should just kill NIP-04 as best we can. e.g. clients should just stop supporting it.

We should only really be using NIP-17 when it's low risk.

It's easy to check for user readiness to use MLS (and I think double ratchet too?).