Wouldn't that require a sort of WoT but for relays? Otherwise, how can I trust a relay is not just making stuff up about someone?
Discussion
you have to trust the relay, there’s no way around that.
I’ve looked into other mechanisms:
- undeniable signatures
- delegate keys that you leak occasionally after some epoch
But they are somewhat complicated. This is a dumb yet simple alternative
I think the delegate key approach is way safer, but people don’t like delegations 🤷♂️
It's not like people don't like, but more that it's though to coordinate all clients to support it in a consistent way.
There have been plenty of people who have expressed explicit distaste for it nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 nostr:npub12262qa4uhw7u8gdwlgmntqtv7aye8vdcmvszkqwgs0zchel6mz7s6cgrkj nostr:npub1l2vyh47mk2p0qlsku7hg0vn29faehy9hy34ygaclpn66ukqp3afqutajft nostr:npub1qqqqqqyz0la2jjl752yv8h7wgs3v098mh9nztd4nr6gynaef6uqqt0n47m and probably more i’m forgetting. I think someone even tried to remove it as a nip if I remember correctly.
I thought Pablo was the one to propose it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I haven't followed the discussion but imagine the distaste boils down to the added complexity all while not being a perfect solution. If nostr were centralize, this wouldn't be a concern since we could shove key delegation down everyone's throats.
yes this is the concern, and it complicates relay implementations. It was originally created by the cto at minds.com as a way they can transition to use nostr, but i don’t think they pushed that very hard and they seem to have lost interest
I didn't propose it, I was an advocate for it -- we even did a panel with nostr:npub1tv8gmfhalwnxxquxjzeh6gtdsdz6vg7vx0s3rt7s7uuw6aujh32qn77wn2 at Nostrica for it.
The closer I got to it the more I realize it was a very problematic NIP.
I think NIP-46 is the right way of doing "delegation" as it's equivalent to taking complexity offchain
I think revocation is needed, and more thinking on the spec
