i mean that if it's relay management business it doesn't belong in the protocol proper
Discussion
yes, i would say what we need even more is a single kind number for "relay administration events" so that anyone can use this safely knowing it's not gonna be misunderstood by (most) relays
I've sort of gotten lost in the conversation. Some of it is over my head, now.
Are we looking at ways to double-check the valid ownership of an nsec key to confirm a retirement event or are you guys suggesting something completely different?
Is this about improving NIP-05, so that could be the confirmation and proof-of-move?
yeah, nip-05 improvements could help with this also by adding a third field that marks a transition event, to mitigate the possibility of the key transition event not getting everywhere your events also are
also it might make sense to augment the fields of nip-05 so that they are dated and signed, but that would be a messy upgrade
So, we'd need to add a change to 05.md and then reference that section in 09.md.
#yestr
but this is an example of why we need NUDs so we can stop memorising name number codes and use human language references
What is a NUD?
oh, you didn't see that!
it's something nostr:npub1l2vyh47mk2p0qlsku7hg0vn29faehy9hy34ygaclpn66ukqp3afqutajft has been working towards with wikifredia - to move the nostr spec to a nostr hosted format, roughly speaking
Nostr Unofficial (specification) Documents
Ah, good. Yeah, makes more sense on a wiki than in git.