4f
Burcgravius
4f3fba82545ff5f921e8df74214ef18bdf4b160cfd99f9438d89648763bfbe43

#Amethyst is starting to shit the bed with long reply chains. Particularly if they are composed of long notes. It skips to other parts of the responses and puts the replies themselves in wrong order.

pls fixerino

I'm amazed by the speed at which #Nostr has become my internet home.

At this point I've dropped #Twitter, #Reddit, and almost #YouTube in favour of this thingy.

#Nostr is full of #antivaxxers and #antimaskers. I do not agree with them.

That said, I find it beautiful and encouraging that they are here, for it is living proof of Nostr's philosophy in practice.

Replying to Avatar Kejtzi

Regarding the rationale behind specifying the types of contracts upfront:

Standardization: By defining types, you create a standardized way to categorize and interpret contracts within the Nostr protocol. This can make it easier for applications built on top of Nostr to understand and process different contract types.

Clarity: Specifying types can provide clarity to the parties involved. Knowing whether an agreement is a legally binding "Contract" versus a less formal "Agreement" or a specific "Covenant" can set clear expectations for all parties.

Filtering & Searching: If there are many contracts within the Nostr network, having predefined types can make filtering and searching more efficient. Users or applications can quickly find all "Covenants" or all "Agreements" without having to parse the content of every contract.

Extensibility: While the initial types are predefined, the system can be designed to be extensible, allowing for the addition of new types in the future as the needs of the community evolve.

However, there are also arguments against specifying types upfront:

Flexibility: Restricting to predefined types might limit the flexibility of the system. Some contracts might not fit neatly into one of the predefined categories.

Overhead: Introducing types adds an additional layer of complexity to the system. Every contract will need to be categorized, and disputes might arise over which category is appropriate.

Evolution: As the protocol and its use cases evolve, the initially defined types might become obsolete or insufficient, requiring updates or revisions to the NIP.

In the end, the decision to specify contract types upfront depends on the goals of the Nostr protocol and the needs of its user community. If the aim is to keep things simple and flexible, it might be better to avoid predefined types. If the goal is to provide structure and standardization, then defining types can be beneficial.

Maybe the problem of evolution could be solved via adding a 'Basic' agreement type, kind of a catch-all?

Bit of a technical question: are parties (and/or witnesses) limited to just three? Or is it an extensible list?

Also, what is the rationale behind specifying upfront the types of contract that are allowed?

Ĝi certe estos. Kontraktoj kaj aliaj iloj kiel tia estas la unua paŝo en la vojo al la #Nostr-subtenita merkato kaj interreta socio!

Grava propono!

Is it consensual ?

The lederhosen-cladding, I mean.

I'm starting to consider the possibility of you secretly being a sexbot-lesbian.

You want a lederhosen-clad sexbot don't you?