I'm not sure how I feel about using kind 1 as generic replies. We do have nip-89 so it is good for discoverability but it still feels like creating a bunch of noise
Discussion
Yeah i was originally against it but having a custom reply kind for every note variant is also kind of annoying
Q1: Is it possible: Similar to medium long form “most highlighted” segments, on nostr wikifree there can be “most controversial” or “least agreement” highlights.
Q2: might git log delta greentext, and redtext be useful somehow? This implies comparing article X version A, and article X version B
Q2: yes, usefull, nostr:npub1m4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsajc2jl asked for it and I'll do it (probably after Prague)
Q1: yes, very much so; this is not trivial and it spans a bunch of different use cases and data comparisons; I plan at some point writing this as a DVM because exploring controversial and disagreeing positions is of extreme value, particularly where we're going, it's going to be increasingly important -- integration of opposites, etc.
not noise, a tree
it's not.
the internet siloed around use cases because each platform wanted to own the data.
if I follow you and you are having a discussion around a book's quote, I of course want to see that and be able to follow along and participate in the conversation.
This didn't happen before due to a technological and financial limitation, but the UX of being able to discover a new book in my twitter feed because you are having a discussion on Goodreads, or Amazon, would have been kickass.
Siloing kinds reduces the network effects of nostr, and means that each use case pretty much must bootstrap a large part of it's own network effects.
NIP-31 + NIP-89 make this discoverable, functional and contextual at an O(1) cost for developers.
furthermore, this is one of these cases where nostr can do something platforms CAN'T. It might feel a bit counterintuitive to allow data to flow unconstrained from the use cases.
But aren't we building stuff that goes beyond the previous capabilities of the internet?
For example, today I found out that a couple of days ago I was participating in a git issue from my kind:1 client. I didn't realize this was happening within a github-like context, but all the needed context was there for me to participate and (hopefully) add something of value to the conversation.
It just magically worked and a "github" issue that would have had maybe one or two comments ended up with a fruitful discussion that added a bunch of color and nuance.
💗💗💗💗💗💗
I keep coming back to some type of kind1 inheritance. Either new kinds extend kind1 so clients can fall back to only showing what they know what to deal with. Or some sort of trait that would allow multikind notes where it is kind1 and enhanced by kindN where clients that know to do special things with the new kind.
I can't disagree with you on that, and I do like the idea of comments being used for discoverability. However it feels wrong using kind 1s as replies because most clients expect them to be social text notes, it already takes enough work filtering out what is a reply and what is a root note
It feels like we should have another kind for generic replies