Replying to Avatar JeffG

I tend to agree. Unfortunately it'll be up to clients to implement this well.

I would love to see NIP-04 go away completely and NIP-17 only be used in very low risk environments.

Once we get broad traction with MLS-based clients it'll be trivial to show whether a user can be contacted that way or if you need to fall back to NIP-17 (or double ratchet). There really isn't ANY reason to use NIP-04 at this point.
d1
regenera 10mo ago

Have you thought about NIP 46 Nostr Remote Signing? It uses NIP 44 for encrypting messages between client (programs) and signers (programs).

And, by my simplistic understanding, that is just NIP 4 with a different encryption algo, but otherwise equivalent ECDH and similar metadata profiles.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.