Then do it over HTTP, I don't care about that part. The only thing I care about is to not use centralized DNS anymore. Storing verifiable payloads with references to HTTP content is incredibly idiotic.
Not every one. :P Amethyst has NIP-95 support with is exactly that.
Impossible without centralizing the conversion between user + password into the private key.
Just to give you an idea, without centralizing it, the "e-mail" would have to use 22 words to represent it. It would be VERY long.
They are messing with you. You will never be able to use a SHA-256 hash of some content inside the content itself. Making the URL hash match the event id hash, when the URL is inside the event, is like having Bitcoin's proof of work at the maximum difficulty possible. Not even the hash rate of the entire bitcoin network can solve that for you.
So, I am reading in a few places that Toast Messages (the thing we use to notify errors) can be disabled on Samsungs if the app's notification is also disabled. Can you check if this brings them back to you?
Some clients have search, but it is quite rudimentary yet. I always hoped new clients would come up with enough data analysis to make those recommendations.
I have been living in Bahston for the past 14 years. :)
we're already doing this, right? I know at least nostr:npub18m76awca3y37hkvuneavuw6pjj4525fw90necxmadrvjg0sdy6qsngq955 and nostr:npub1w0rthyjyp2f5gful0gm2500pwyxfrx93a85289xdz0sd6hyef33sh2cu4x too
I have never heard about a `q` tag until now.
Amethyst, Plebstr, and Snort have just been following NIP-10's guidance with "mention" markers: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/10.md
I don't disagree that is not ideal.
My only point is that you should not assume `e` tags are necessarily part of the thread, especially when they have a marker on it (any non-root, non-reply marker).
Hey nostr:npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z noticed in the past few versions of Amethyst all uploads to nostr:npub1nxy4qpqnld6kmpphjykvx2lqwvxmuxluddwjamm4nc29ds3elyzsm5avr7 result in HTTP links instead of HTTPS - bug?
We just use what @nostr.build replies. if it replies with http, it goes in http.
I would not assume `e` tags are necessarily part of the thread. It all depends on the marker in the new system. And people can create any marker they want.
That's the old method where all `e`s were considered part of the thread. In the new one with markers, you can have multiple different interpretations for the `e` tags. The text clearly says that a `mention` marker declared a Quoted Post, not a reply.
Isn't it supposed to be a `mention` marker as per NIP-10?
Yep, that is incorrect. The post is not a reply.
nostr:npub1t3ggcd843pnwcu6p4tcsesd02t5jx2aelpvusypu5hk0925nhauqjjl5g4 This was my test. It is a post that mentions one of mine.
As new threads in the regular feed (not as a reply).
Hum.. looks like they don't support tagged mentions yet.
Can you give me a note id example of where that's happening? I can check if the event is being created correctly.