I am very curious to hear the feedback on this
https://github.com/vitorpamplona/nips/blob/relationship-status/81.md
Discussion
NIP81: "It's complicated"
Jokes aside, if I'm understanding it correctly, it would broadcast your trust in other npubs, right? Really good idea to build decentralized networks of trust.
To what end?
They could be private "tags", useful to filter the feed.
Or you can add a public visibility flag and show them only if the two npubs match the same status (ex. partner, family, etc).
I am not sure. I have heard the need for publically saying something but privately something else, even between friends :(
So, I made it to do private only and not add noise to the public record. But we can change
I think private and public areas can be managed differently:
- Privately we can have general purpose tags, that can *also* be used for relationships.
- Publicly the relationships between two users should match to be activated, and maybe the relationships should have a predefined list of values (i18n issue here).
Sounds like we would be connecting dots of a friends graph.. Something the govs would love.. On the other hand I see it could be a little useful
Why? Some people might watch that a little too closely and try to triangulate too much. Unless it's an optional feature, I say leave it alone.
Can you filter for encrypted tags? I imagine this would be important especially for automatically generated statuses like “hot and occasionally ok-ish spambot”.
Also: wise-spread? Is this a Freudian slip?
If you don't mind me asking, what's the motivation behind this NIP?
Breaking down what's a follow, or just friends colleagues from important people (partners/family).
Wide spread not wise spread ***
I’m not quite sure I understand it 😅 I think I kind of do 🙏 but I probably don’t. Does this mean you would put a relationship status for every npub you follow ? As in ‘friend’, ‘acquaintance’ etc.?
Very good beginning, but it needs to be more clear in several aspects.
For example, define "trust". Trust, like in GPG or social trust or what trust? How does one measure it?
Is it to prioritise people & their feeds or to increase interaction safety?
Sure, one could argue, that any implementation can decide for itself, but this would open hell's doors, because you certainly don't want different interpretations for such a potentially crucial feature, if one chooses to depend on it.
This is for yourself only, so you define what trust means.
It sounds like the base abstraction here is "tagging."
At the protocol level, would it make sense to focus on a generic tagging system that could describe any kind of event?
It seems like that would be broadly useful while still allowing clients to decide at the application level if they want to, say, use tags to describe a person's relationships.
🤔 How interesting! What if we used this Vitor's proposal as a DAO manager, where the account could act as a bot and facilitate Monero voting transactions? It could be an exciting combination! 👥💼
🤔 What if we used Monero transactions as 2FA? In this case, we could create a bot to "code" relays and utilize these transactions auth to create an API. Does my vision make sense?
So this could be work as roles in discord