Replying to Avatar Stuart Bowman

> After a person clicks the submit button after composing a community note, he will see two popups from the signer extension . Not sure if that would startle them as generally only one is expected

Good point. Although when posting an existing note into a community, the user will only be signing one event. (that's actually one additional benefit of this approach, it allows users to "pull" other notes into communities with kind 4549 events, just like how mods can pull events into communities with kind 4550 events)

> When someone zaps or reacts to a community post, we need to make sure to count it against the post request and not the approval event or the orginal kind 1 event if it exists. Is my understanding correct?

Correct, that's my understanding as well. Zaps/reactions would go to the post request, since that event will be present and indexed on relays.

> in case the user doesn't want the new note in their feed, there will be no "e" tag in their post request, right?

Actually I think it *would* make sense to include the 'e' tag so that clients can query to find all the post requests for an event (this would be relevant when an existing note was posted-requested into a community).

> I think it is a neat way to ask A client not to look for the actual event.

Well clients that don't support communities are not going to pull the kind 4549 post-requests in the first place, right? So they'll never have any reason to look for the actual events. And clients that *do* support communities won't need to look for the events since they already have the actual events (they can parse them from the content string)

Thanks for the in-depth response, and please let me know if I misunderstood any of your points!

Will the NIP be changed like nostr:npub1lunaq893u4hmtpvqxpk8hfmtkqmm7ggutdtnc4hyuux2skr4ttcqr827lj suggested?

Can I go ahead and make these changes this weekend?

Cc: nostr:npub1alpha9l6f7kk08jxfdaxrpqqnd7vwcz6e6cvtattgexjhxr2vrcqk86dsn

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

nostr:npub1ltx67888tz7lqnxlrg06x234vjnq349tcfyp52r0lstclp548mcqnuz40t So I’ve been thinking about this.

To keep things simple, for Satellite, I’m going to go ahead and use kind 4549 as a direct clone of kind 1 as nostr:npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z suggested. So the content string of 4549 will be text just like kind 1.

My initial concern was that having a single kind defined as a “community post” would preclude the reuse of other event kinds, which is why I suggested “wrapping” the events.

I still intend to use kind 4549 as a wrapper to post non-kind-1 events into communities. When a non-kind-1 event is posted, the 4549 event will include a “k” tag indicating the kind of event that was wrapped.

But for 4549 events that do not have a “k” tag (or a “k” tag equal to 1), Satellite will assume that they should be treated like kind 1 and render the content directly.

I like this cause it’s just doing the simple “clone kind 1 thing” but adding the “k” tag allows me to do also do the wrapping thing so I can support other event types on Satellite. If other apps only care about kind 1 that’s fine.

I’m also implementing this weekend and writing up some documentation. Lmk if you wanna collab 🤙

Also Damus was bugging out and caused me to triple post this reply 🤦‍♂️

So sorry if you got spammed with notifications m!

Awesome :) thanks for the detailed response 🙏 I will try to do the same

I will get back to you with questions if I get any during implementation.

My weekend schedule is still adhoc and me being in India makes synchronous collab impossible.

Will keep a message channel open for async collab, if that's ok with you.

Sounds good!

So 4549 is will not show up in feeds but a request post for community just like the current kind 1 event with “a” tag.

Yep

Just pushed this update. Some rough edges here and there but usable now.

Hi nostr:npub1lunaq893u4hmtpvqxpk8hfmtkqmm7ggutdtnc4hyuux2skr4ttcqr827lj is satellite still using 4549 as default kind for community messages?

I got a GitHub issue saying NIP doesn't talk about this 4549 kind.

https://github.com/vivganes/zapddit/issues/52

Not sure how to resolve this.

Cc: nostr:npub1alpha9l6f7kk08jxfdaxrpqqnd7vwcz6e6cvtattgexjhxr2vrcqk86dsn

Actually I haven’t implemented it yet. I plan to make type 1 default, but with a checkbox on the new post editor like “hide this post from profile feed” to make 4549 optional

Thanks! I will do the same.

Also, how do we make the 4549 official? Should we write a NIP? Can I start a draft of that?

Sure, I think it would make the most sense to just make a pull request into NIP-172. If you link the pull to me I’ll review it and leave my comments

Hi nostr:npub1lunaq893u4hmtpvqxpk8hfmtkqmm7ggutdtnc4hyuux2skr4ttcqr827lj

I raised a new PR as you suggested - https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/753

I just wrote down whatever you suggested in the earlier discussion. Your inputs to this PR would be very much valuable.

CC: nostr:npub1alpha9l6f7kk08jxfdaxrpqqnd7vwcz6e6cvtattgexjhxr2vrcqk86dsn