Replying to Avatar Moos

Hey nostr:nprofile1qqsgzfdez8ksa9xmuvqg5zly3nl9e5xqkpvj8nllj9aw06ra4pqq3qcq9n0c5 , a little issue regarding replies in Jumble, see below I have commented on an article

I got a reply to my comment, but when checking its event (it was published from Jumble) the root comment was mine (which is not), it was supposed to be the article in which I have commented on, can you check it please 🙏

here's my comment

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzq2p3895qy8wc25zjwhewma2a3l4swx5g4hkxrgrdxjfrk4lqxmudqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qpqw44acz3kyjr36yw5yf3phmdmwcm0p0cfuwjpmgl7p6xd9q275tksr7u8xp

Avatar
Cody 1w ago 💬 1

The main issue is that Yakihonne is still using kind 1 events to reply to kind 30023 articles

https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/23.md

> Replies to kind 30023 MUST use NIP-22 kind 1111 comments.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Moos 1w ago 💬 1

The thing is, this NIP isn’t widely adopted yet, which is why we’re still sticking with the old standards. We’ll gradually start using the new kind for sure, but it’s always a good idea to keep the main root ID so you stay compatible with both old and new standards.

Avatar
Cody 1w ago 💬 1

I’ll add some compatibility handling for this later, but I don’t agree with continuing to use kind 1 replies for non–kind 1 events. I think NIP-22 already has fairly broad support, and as a popular client, yakihonne should move forward with it.

Avatar
Moos 1w ago

We will surely.