nostr:nprofile1qqsx45yrjtgm4glklaafgz0z4309gs6cwfja3d99s8rqvlvgagcptpqprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet54gjttu , looks very interesting! A question that has been on my mind from some time… Is nostr:nprofile1qqs2rx4daefmcuwjttl0xegx0guh3tps64fq6dhv3nr56aagw2hhxkgprfmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumm5dpjhyum5w4nxvtnx095sz9mhwden5te0wfjkccte9eekjctdwd68ytnrdaksrr73t8 using NIP-XX-Places from nostr:nprofile1qqsw3mfhnrr0l6ll5zzsrtpeufckv2lazc8k3ru5c3wkjtv8vlwngkspzemhxue69uhkummnw3ex2mrfw3jhxtn0wfnj7qg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09uhefmkm ? Or are places represented in another form?
I ask, because I can imagine many use cases for ‘places’ but as far as I can see, we have not agreed on a standard yet and that NIP is getting close
Started that way, but was too complicated and the standard was never fleshed out.
Before we go building standards, we need to get the actual product and its features right.
This is one giant experiment amd we’re still working that out.
Once we do, and we are done with making changes, we will propose a standard and “Nostrfy” each location.
Until then, we’ve got to get it right, and build in such a way that can easily be changed and evolved.
