> why not just switch accounts at the extension level and the nip07 is called with the active key?
The problem is that I want clients to support multiple accounts. In fact I did start implementing such a client but could not keep up with the other emerging clients. Think about how Twitter works. You can add multiple accounts to your app/website and then switch with a click in the app. You would not want to mirror that click with a click in the plugin. So either the client has to tell the plugin with each function the pubkey it wants to act on behalf or - and I guess that's inferior - it has to tell the plugin when to switch accounts. The latter is problematic as I might be working on multiple tabs and the plugin would have to maintain state per tab to not encrypt messages from the wrong user for example.
JS doesn't care if the method would accept more parameters so it should be backwards compatible or in other words, that extra parameter may be undefined in which case it would behave as before.
On the other hand as the client would need to be changed to take advantage of this, a new method could be introduced. It would just clutter the API if you had both `encrypt()` and `encryptWith()`.
I offer a 1Msat bounty for extending [nos2x-fox](https://github.com/diegogurpegui/nos2x-fox) to multiple accounts.
* When I pinned the extension, switching between keys can be done in the dropdown. With only this implemented (and the configuration of multiple keys) I offer 0.5Msat.
* nip07 methods accept an additional parameter - the expected pubkey. For example `window.nostr.nip04.encrypt(correspondentPubkey, plaintext, myPubkey)` instead of `window.nostr.nip04.encrypt(pubkey, plaintext)`
#[0]
Maybe that's women entering the work force? While the prior generation mostly had single providers, more and more women entering the work force often part time resulted in statistical work hour reductions as in your chart.
https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_07072004/
It's hard to compare if we get less for our work or not as you can't compare a smartphone or a cure for a disease with not having those back then but I find the question very valid how can it be that 120 years after the very invention of automation (conveyor belt) most of us still have to labor most of our waking hours in order to support a family?
It’s not true that we are working more hours to afford the same things as our parents, though. When you look at people’s buying power from the perspective of prices of things, at the average industrial wage, the average person only works about 20 minutes per day to pay for the daily food intake. In the 1950s, it was about 3 hours.
Some things are more expensive, like real estate. But I would strongly argue that land-use policy and anti-development policies at the local level have artificially restricted the ability to build housing and play an outsized role.
Here’s a video by a libertarian, Austrian economist, who disagrees with you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8SLIt7xZxU
For poor people, housing, education and health care are very significant items on their shopping list. To skip those is to cut corners.
Education and health care certainly got more expensive because of political decisions that are not directly related to inflation but housing getting more expensive is a direct result of fiat not being a good store of wealth. Real estate has a speculative premium it wouldn't otherwise have.
So the car is better than 100 years ago? Yeah, but the industrial processes to produce cars are 1000 times more efficient than 100 years ago. It's ridiculous to pretend that a car costing about as much as 100 years ago is ok.
Even the chicken example: How many people were involved raising 1000 chicken 100 years ago compared to today? The author of your video celebrates an x11 improvement where it should be x100.
I don't support letting people get hurt to make a point about fractional reserve banking or bitcoin.
"burn it all down" is the wrong analogy. It's not about bringing destruction to an otherwise fine situation.
It's one destruction vs. another destruction. It's like the trolley dilemma with the trolley about to run over 1 person and you can flip the switch to run over 2 but later. Do you really bring destruction by flipping the switch?
Also it's about all the people all the time suffering from fiat money! Fiat money is the culprit why we are working more hours than our fathers and can afford less than they could. Technological progress is supposed to work the other way around!
Yes, if bank runs rip through society suddenly, it will be really bad for many people and I don't cheer for that neither but I do hope there will be more banks failing in the near future.
Let there be a slightly bigger financial crisis than the last one so more people prepare for what's coming.
People losing their life savings is tragic but as long as it's not all the banks all at once, I have no doubt there will be ways to avoid the worst.
Yes, some will get hit harder than others and FDIC insurance at least in theory should protect the poorest account holders.
I don't support letting people get hurt to make a point about fractional reserve banking or bitcoin.
People will get hurt and got hurt way too long already. Death by a thousand cuts is not preferable to doing whatever it needs to stop the cutting.
Their bank or any other bank out there for that matter.
Damn! I so want to be there but ... did only 40 or so people register? ;)
Am I the only one who's struggling to maintain more than one account using nip07 extensions? I just tried to create a WalletScrutiny nostr account using a secondary nostr extension in my browser but as kind of expected, old nos2x does not play well with nos2x-fox - the former appears to not get asked for stuff at all. So now I have the former configured with this account and the latter with WalletScrutiny and to switch, I have to enable/disable nos2x-fox.
Also ... https://github.com/diegogurpegui/nos2x-fox/issues/7
Just found out that #[0] isn't only a great (although flawed because closed source) software developer, he also has a youtube channel.
Check out this for example:
It looks harmless in the end. Only spamming 1200 users with some BS and my client can't handle the many mentions and it's probably strain on the relays, too.
The event with `.content`
> OMG, why such an honor like this?
>
> Thank you 🙏⚡🧡
that mentions more than 1000 pubkeys looks like an attack. I hope the thread not loading in my client meant I'm save but the event itself looks benign but it appears to be in reply to something forged. Any research on this yet? Will see if I can do some research.
With nostr I'm surprised how easy it is. Most people I care about on Twitter already are on nostr. 😎
At this point I might start looking through my Twitter follows to find those last few laggers that are not on nostr yet :D
To have money means to have options. It's quite natural for all beings to try to move into the position from where they have more options. If you live in a dark corner, you might dream of a life on the hill top - you might love to have a position of more options. Love of money is nothing more or less than that, isn't it?
That's ... interesting. So nostrgram shows the body as if it was kind 1 and snort apparently, too?
I tried out https://ananostr.com/e/c7df1a49a4f404525bad3752093fc12272960bf5026e443e95e226f141c88e42 and while the OPs there are not kind 1, replies to OPs are and they reference the OP event as if it was kind 1. That is actually great as I was wondering how to draw attention to such structured events myself and see how the structure could be done more human readable instead of json.