Profile: 738ea36e...
nostr:note1rhxwxmplrur7y23gq8k6fnjqzu0a7jy7jyvvzzt7cus5xyju4aysm5xfn8
nostr:npub12vkcxr0luzwp8e673v29eqjhrr7p9vqq8asav85swaepclllj09sylpugg wen replaceable long-form events (NIP-23) support?
Amazing :)
I've been considering enhancing the credibility of the nostr:npub1j3t00t9hv042ktszhk8xpnchma60x5kz4etemnslrhf9e9wavywqf94gll and nostr:npub15g7m7mrveqlpfnpa7njke3ccghmpryyqsn87vg8g8eqvqmxd60gqmx08lk by developing an open-source verifier. This verifier would fetch & compare messages from the mailing lists to their respective Nostr accounts. Every X hours it would ensure all messages have been published and remain unaltered, then sign a "sync validation signature" with the validator nsec and publish. This approach could provide stronger assurance that no additional layer of moderation exists in the cloned mailing lists. What are your thoughts on this? Any ideas on how we can feasibly implement it? Perhaps only reasonable with nsecbunker? nostr:npub1l2vyh47mk2p0qlsku7hg0vn29faehy9hy34ygaclpn66ukqp3afqutajft
Commando & Bookkeeper is a great combo. See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EiA1pJGI4M
That's odd. I've just discovered that the long-form event tagged summary on Coracle displays some random note instead of the correct one. In contrast, Amethyst shows it correctly. Does anyone know why this could be happening?
@nevent1qqsxpy2ugd377k3a760lpthkzlppmeltxqezgff4qy5ngermaz6ay3cpxfmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzvuk8wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv93mhxue69uhkumewwd68ytnrwg4cp9t7
nostr:npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z
@npub1jlrs53pkdfjnts29kveljul2sm0actt6n8dxrrzqcersttvcuv3qdjynqn
It might be interesting if we could interface nsecBunker with an affordable, simple signing device capable of validating the policies on its own. This seems more straightforward than VLC for Lightning. Anyone doing this?
I understand nostr:npub18kzz4lkdtc5n729kvfunxuz287uvu9f64ywhjz43ra482t2y5sks0mx5sz point. High-cost services will only be available to a select few users who pass the stringent reputation test, which is acceptable. But why not implement both options? Why not allow users to pay upfront (a concept I'll call "zapfront" π) to specific service providers (based on reputation), and also signal a permission for a delivery of results via an encrypted DM?
Is it only me in nostrjail? π’ π’
Congrats nostr:npub1l2vyh47mk2p0qlsku7hg0vn29faehy9hy34ygaclpn66ukqp3afqutajft! 795441 is a great birthdate! π
That's very cool!
Still cool to see an email about Bitcoin & Nostr sent to the Bitcoin-dev mailing list and being cloned to Nostr :)
Is the real Antoine Riard on Nostr?
The one mentioned in nostr:npub1wlhtt0d2g4yu7plwqq4rnwfrda8du7xlvs8v57c32u0wear0v8tq6h90xk message
It helps generating much less boring QR codes, try it yourself:
Hi nostr:npub1tsgw6pncspg4d5u778hk63s3pls70evs4czfsmx0fzap9xwt203qtkhtk4, could you suggest an alternative mitigation approach for that specific attack?
Want one of these as well? you can generate your own at https://bolt12.tattoo or https://qr.autobtc.ai
Please be patient, it's being processed on a self-hosted GPU π
