Thanks for testing.
Please note, this is still in the early stages. We will later make an incompatible upgrade to the shared key group, replacing NIP-4 with NIP-17 or a modified version of NIP-17. nostr:note124e9zffvqjg0uzpc97leses8fgzfk669j8px0m72rpza5eecd9uqa8xdrx
nostr:nprofile1qqsw3znfr6vdnxrujezjrhlkqqjlvpcqx79ys7gcph9mkjjsy7zsgygpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsz8thwden5te0dehhxarj9ekh2arfdeuhwctvd3jhgtnrdakj7qgkwaehxw309ajkgetw9ehx7um5wghxcctwvshspg7dju the double ratchet, I hear you talk about so much :)
Would a modified version of NIP-17 mean that you'd be making an upgrade to something that wouldn't be compatible with any other client that supports NIP-17?
These are our concerns regarding NIP-17. We are not sure whether to modify NIP-17 together or if our concerns are misplaced.
nostr:note1fy2yam6h0cm628rjlyzra06t5azxuru0q88hegjxtpz5uwstztnqmy0csl
The point of a protocol is to have standards. These standards allow interoperability, right? It sounds like you should consider working together with those working on that NIP. It would be the best for the protocol and for your application.
We agree with your statement. This is our first time delving deep into NIP-17, so we initially posted an explanation of our views on NIP-17.
