New confirmations spec just dropped.
nostr:nevent1qqsq74sy7lk0tqhpe8e29z7rulnsuh0p38d9zknqzjehur3jvwwq2fq7ln0mz
Discussion
nostr:npub149p5act9a5qm9p47elp8w8h3wpwn2d7s2xecw2ygnrxqp4wgsklq9g722q nostr:npub1fjqqy4a93z5zsjwsfxqhc2764kvykfdyttvldkkkdera8dr78vhsmmleku What do you think about this?
it seems like another angle to try and add polarity to reactions
but it could have value for WoT calculations
i've mentioned this, the only way i see any of this working from a UX perspective is that you have a +/- reaction button that pops open the optional emoji, and tags the event with a polarity value according to which side you click
i think it's an important idea but i don't see the point in creating a separate event when we can just add a tag to the existing reaction, which for any compliant event codec should just be ignored if the program doesn't understand the meaning of it
But this doesn't have anything to do with reactions. This is about two people meeting up someplace outside of nostr and then one validating the other's npub on nostr. Like "Met them at the software workshop during Nostrasia." or "Friend I brought over from Instagram." or something.
oh
is it countersigned? sorta seems like it should be
Well, they could also issue you a confirmation of the same type, right? You could even include something similar in the content field, or have a special tag, to show that you did it in a coordinated manner. Or do something involving puzzles on your smartphone or QR codes, or include a selfie together, or whatnot. The client can come up with whatever method they want.
I tried to leave it implementation-open, as the idea is that people come up with a bunch of different kinds of confirmation, so that every npub has multiple possibilities for being confirmed, and then evaluating npubs decide which kinds of confirmation they'd accept. You could even use this for 2FA or something.
I see it as a further step away from The Tyranny of Follows and toward npub-tailored WoT metrics. Like the next step, after the relationship status NIP.
ah ok, yeah, i guess "i saw person at place" can be one sided versus "i met person at place" which implies two sides
it's a type of attestation i guess, but i think there is an issue about its polarity here too? denial versus confirmation?
Ah, you mean, the other npub should be able to "+" or "-" vote on confirmations they receive? 🤔
Like, "No, don't trust this guy, he's a crazy stalker!" 😅
Would that be like a 19831 countersign/denial reply to a 1983 event?
does it have to use a separate kind? can't you just add an "e" tag and use the content field for +/-
Okay, but in a content field? Wouldn't it be better in a cosign tag, or something?
nah, agreement, or confirmation, would be this event kind with an "e" tag with the value (second field) of the original testimony
also, i'd say what you are digging at is more like the law concept of testimony, ie, a testament, but attestation is more palatable to the woke mules of satan
oh, also, why in the content field? what else would match up for this place... claim content "i was here" disagreement "-" or confirmation "+" no need to add more than that to it "i agree/disagree" and if there is no "e" tag then it's an Original Claim
Well, I was thinking you could actually respond. 😂 Like how I sometimes respond to zap comments.
well, maybe just add that the first character is + or - to signify agreement or disagreement, and then if anything else, a space first
i don't see any reason why to expand it more than that, to allow other signifiers, just stick with one simple one less bullshit faulty implementation problems
even you can ignore the whitespace idea, but i think a space is a good one, broadening anything is a nightmare... + or - and then a space character if anything else comes after, and the rest is parsed as a comment that humans might want to read
Ah, an attestation "Saw him at Nostriga!" and a confirmation "Yeah, it was great! Hope to see you at Nostradam!"
Nice. 🤌🏼
keep it simple
pay no attention to the c++ and javascript and rust programmers ideas about adding complexity to your spec
What do you think?
very nice
changed it to:
"meetup : the npub was seen or interacted-with, in person, at a real-life event"
it's similar to https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/761 so when you talk about relationship status you mean this?
Yes. This is a generic confirmation, for that information which isn't worth making an additional NIP because it's just some online puzzle they completed or you helped them install Damus on the phone or something.
Until now, this has all ended up in "No, she's a real person, not a bot! I met her at Nostriga and we shared a beer. ☺️ " kind 01 notes. Which are great, but imagine how great they would be with a confirmation event embedded?