Replying to Avatar Vitor Pamplona

It does address it with key aliases. You don't need to use your nsec to implement NIP 17. You can use any other key. :)

We just need somebody to start that implementation.
Avatar
The Fishcake (nostr.build) 1y ago

I think that should have been in the NIP-17 as a standard and a requirement from the beginning then. Otherwise we are making fragmentation and confusion of who is or is not supporting secure implementation of DMs 🐶🐾🫡

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Vitor Pamplona 1y ago

Nah, it would have been too much change. I coded a lousy way of doing it very easily but creates additional security questions. In fact, you can do Double Hatchet (another dev is building it right now) or MLS inside of NIP17. It's just 10x the complexity.

Avatar
The Fishcake (nostr.build) 1y ago

I’ll agree to disagree! At least I hope there will be a separate NIP for properly secured DMs🐶🐾🫡🫂

Avatar
Vitor Pamplona 1y ago

There will be dozens of separate protocols for sure.

People's need for privacy are vastly different from use case to use case. I don't think a single scheme will solve it all. In the end, we are just going to choose the privacy level we want for each task.

Avatar
Kimico 1y ago

tks for your work