Nostr Web Client

It would not be hard to adapt keys to relays in a transport-agnostic way. Just add a new event kind 3xxxx which means "I am a relay" with tags declaring relay address under different transport (wss, onion, etc).

> The reason that devs keep wanting to put logic directly into the relay is that nostr has no official spec for moderation of a relay and the nostr world is very opposed to talking about moderation or making it easy, so it is a green field.

This misses the point for me. Relays largely already have everything they need to do moderation (nip 56, auth, and deleting stuff), which means the best form of moderation is going to be implicit on the protocol level, explicit on the human level.

But I agree that the needs of a community for policy enforcement neatly match those of any kind of relay.

Niel Liesmons 11mo ago

> Just add a new event kind 3xxxx which means "I am a relay" with tags declaring relay address under different transport (wss, onion, etc).

Is there a serious case against this? Because that's exactly what the noob in me would do. Leaving the option open to also specify the media servers that Community uses.

> Relays largely already have everything they need to do moderation

Yup, they might miss just a few things to make Communities work, but that doesn't mean we need copy (and add unnecessary complexity) to the whole relay spec in something like NIP-29, just to add these.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

hodlbod 11mo ago

It seems reasonable enough to me, but we'd have to propose it and see what others think. And yeah, communities do need other things, at least granular permissions for sub-groups, but the starting point IMO should be relays as groups

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 11mo ago

Number one problem is binding them to DNS more important to decouple that than talk about adding features.