Nostr Web Client

nostr:nprofile1qyd8wumn8ghj7urewfsk66ty9enxjct5dfskvtnrdakj7qguwaehxw309a5x7ervvfhkgtnrdaexzcmvv5h8gmm0d3ej7qgswaehxw309ahx7um5wghx6mmd9uq3samnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwvd6hyun9de6zuenedyhsqgyhcu9ygdn2v56uz3dnx0uh865xmlwz675emfsccsxxguz6mx8rygvgrphq secondary: have you considered defining some global/well known labels in NIP-32 kind of like the nip28.moderation namespace you included, especially for covering NIP-56 use cases? nudity and profanity are probably already covered by NIP-36, but "malware", "illegal", "spam", "impersonation" all would be nice to have a canonical representation with NIP-32.

hodlbod 1y ago

I've left that as an exercise for the reader, but only nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcpzdmhxue69uhhqatjwpkx2urpvuhx2ue0qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3ezucnpdejz7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yh8qunfd4skctnwv46z7qg6waehxw309ac8junpd45kgtnxd9shg6npvchxxmmd9uqsuamnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dshszxrhwden5te0dehhxarj9enx6apwwa5h5tnzd9az7qgkwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3ezumn9wshszxthwden5te0wfjkccte9eekummjwsh8xmmrd9skctcqyqtnnkfhmjxqcums4gn4skfccyv7yhzp7mzyrfwnf3kns5p7xymw7teljxj has really come up with a real ontology. I think maybe nos.social has one for reporting too, but I don't know if it's published anywhere.

Using labels for verifications would definitely work, although I think maybe badges would be a better fit semantically.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Ademan 1y ago

Thanks! I think you'd need a label on the badge so that automated systems know what the badge actually means. That kind of makes the badge an indirect label anyway. I'll have to think about it though. I suppose it actually opens up using more novelty badges for verification though, like a "1 year club" badge for instance, which has some verification value but it's more of a novelty.

Since I've got your attention on the original post, too, do you have an opinion on how to handle "proof" metadata? (URL to a twitter post, proof of fidelity bond, etc?) Just add the relevant tags? For instance, for twitter verification it might be an 'r' tag, and for fidelity bonds the proof might be some new tag type?

Also, where do you discuss nostr dev typically, so I'm not just harassing you ;-) (although my question was BIP-32 related anyway)

hodlbod 1y ago

Nostr and github are both fine for me. For proof metadata I would just add the relevant tags as you say (`r`, or whatever). But at that point you're kind of stepping outside NIP 32's scope. I'd probably try to keep things focused by using a different kind for attestations like that.

Ademan 1y ago

I think you're the only person to ever reply to one of my dev posts on nostr, and I dragged you in lol