no but the intent is to de-emphasize it on the basis that it’s confusing to devs. apparently people are trying to stuff usecases into kind 1 that some folks don’t like.
I strongly disagree with all of the above.
Discussion
I don’t want my notes to be edited by other people to create supposedly safe experience for others. If plebs dislike my language they are free to unfollow or mute me. In a collaborative setting, I can understand that. But my notes are ME shouting into the fois with my tinfoil hat on.
I don’t even know if the PR has anything to do with that. It’s just from my last exchange with Vit.
nah this PR is just de-emphasizing kind 1. the editing thing is totally separate.
What is the advantage Vit seeks? Why don’t you like it, what does it imply?
nostr is primarily about Notes (kind 1). that’s the primary use-case. the proposal is to de-emphasize those text notes in the base spec and instead lump kind 1 into the pool of a zillion other kinds.
I don’t like that because in my opinion it obscures the main value prop on the implied basis that devs can’t RTFM.
Got it. I don’t see kind1 as the main value prop though. I see it as the communication layer for something far greater. Data resilience via relays is the main value proposition in my eyes.
agreed, the decentralized relay architecture is clearly the core of it but it’s only useful with some consensus around the events we’re sending. and currently there are a zillion different event types and growing. it’s that complexity and sprawl that concerns me. de-emphasizing kind 1 pushes further into that opaque future.
did you know that a recent study showed the average undergraduate IQ has dropped from 120 to 101 in the last 20 years?
It made zoomers and the universities so mad they fought to suppress it. But the truth is out.
who are “some folks” and what are the use cases? Also, hello 👋 and happy Sunday 🙂