Nostr Web Client

NIP-39 did not deprecate NIP-05 because NIP-05 is a way of having Nostr identifiers while NIP-39 is a way of *listing* identifiers.

If you view using a tag which is standard convention to list NIP-05 IDs as “unnecessary complexity” and prefer a JSON field (the usage of which is being phased out) then I don’t know what to say.

imp0stor 4mo ago 💬 1

I will just pivot to a full offering for each nip-05 registrar I am making and incentivize it when it is used as primary with best in class offerings for all the features the competition is offering, with a discount for migration from other ones. Adding unique value on top of it.

Then it will not be an issue anymore.

Nip-39 is a way of listing non-nostr based identities on platforms that do not support nostr specific logic.

The idea that this is even a debate is telling in many ways. It very much seems to be a random hill to die on, until you look at the financial interest in all those who opposing it are running nip-05 registrars, but do not see the value in allowing an array of the same into the profile.

Nip-39 is far less implemented, user/dev friendly and its original intent seems to be for services that cannot provide a link to the npub.

For a project that is supposed to be about freedom and empowerment of the individual, there sure seem to be a lot of reasons to not do simple things that have demand and use cases.

It seems that we are also not the first to ask for similar and even when I pivoted from a new nip, to the suggested extension of nip-05, as requested, there is still a myriad of roadblocks put up by others who are selling nip-05 addresses and do not seem to want to enable any other potential entry into that space.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

semisol 4mo ago 💬 1

While NIP-39 is not popularly implemented, your specification is not even implemented so I don’t get your point.

If you intend to take any criticism that suggested changes and nothing else and twist it into your own view of “everyone that runs a paid NIP-05 service hates my proposal”, then you just want a yes-man for your proposal.

Go spend your time building services that provide value to users like nostr.land, not baseless attacks on others.

imp0stor 4mo ago 💬 1

This is what I am trying to do. I want to build services and have put extensive time into design and hardware build out. Much of the implementation is planned and waiting for my time, which is scarce.

My point is, the technical implementation of this change is minimal and optional for most existing systems. It is not a risk.

I am not really trying to start a war, I was trying to get a point across that there is a viable and desired use case here that many potential contributors to the ecosystem see value in. The pushback seems very excessive considering the request and the motives of the opposition to it are more questionable than the motives of those requesting it, considering it enables more capabilities for all providers in a way that would be mainly non-intrusive. It does not have to be json, it could be an array in any preferred method of storage.

I just do not see the wisdom in preventing this from becoming available for use. It has upsides for nostr.

semisol 4mo ago 💬 2

If you read my feedback the only thing I have proposed is that you use NIP-39 for this as it is already designed for that purpose, and not trying to prevent its use.

The current *approach* you propose is technically inferior and therefore deserves pushback.

semisol 4mo ago

Any proposal should be separated into concept and approach/implementation. A proposal’s idea does not have to be bad for the implementation to be bad.

imp0stor 4mo ago 💬 1

Nip-39 is not really the same. It requires basically reusing the nip-05 login on a case by case basis, where the code could just iterate the array of aliases where it does the nip-05 now. It seems like more technical debt than needed. It also does not even include any reference for nip-05 ids

semisol 4mo ago 💬 1

And that is why you extend the proposal.

This is how you get all aliases using your method:

JSON.parse(e.content).nip05_aliases

And this is how it works with NIP-39:

e.tags.filter(t => t[0] === "i").map(t => t[1].split(":")).filter(t => t[0] === "nip05").map(t => t[1])

Both fit in one line, and the latter allows you to also support PGP keys and similar

imp0stor 4mo ago 💬 1

Fair enough on this, but it still faces the fact that it does not achieve much of the intended goal do to the lack of general adoption for nip-39. So basically it just goes into a black hole.

semisol 4mo ago 💬 1

Whether it be NIP-39 or your proposal does not matter, both currently do not have adoption for multiple NIP-05s and clients will have to do equivalent effort to implement either approach

imp0stor 4mo ago

I would see them adopting an enhancement to an existing nip they support before adding one they have dismissed so far, but yes adoption would still have to happen. It is just a much larger curve for the nip-39 and nip-05 is already basically what is needed, just a small addition to support the array.

Same could be said of nip-39, but I think you see my point.