AFAIK there is already such warning in the nip05 spec.
Ngit is just local. Has no effect on the remotes listed as clones. Someone has to git push to those.
But if you push a maintainers file with your npub in it, nip34 clients can verify that the repo event author has write permissions.
So in a way, you can "signal" linkage
>The costs of maintaining a fork are quite high.
They don't have to maintain a fork, that is only 1 of the options. They can use their fork as a proxy to open PRs in github/gitlab/etc using the nostr submitted patches.
> what if they could create a repo event which highlights that they are not the maintainer
Why not just submit the repo event with an empty maintainers list? It's essentially the same thing, or not? 🤔
I agree but one thing is what is possible, another what is the best practice.
IMO, if you don't have push permissions for the original repo, you should publish a repo event where the clone url points to your fork, not the original repo.
Isn't the fake repo event issue similar to spoofing NIP05 for domains you don't own?
Sure, anyone can pretend to have elon@x.com nip05, but there is an easy way to verify it.
Sure WoT all things, but clients should also be able to easily verify that the repo holds the maintainers.yml ?
git over nostr scenario: a contributor wants a repository to use nostr instead of github but they are not a maintainer. what should they do? nostr:npub16r0tl8a39hhcrapa03559xahsjqj4s0y6t2n5gpdk64v06jtgekqdkz5pl nostr:npub10000003zmk89narqpczy4ff6rnuht2wu05na7kpnh3mak7z2tqzsv8vwqk
for the nips repository nostr:npub1m4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsajc2jl and nostr:npub1896p07z8xngpct5ma00mdrad4gqfnwfwdqcl706wrm25ajynahhs27x5ge's instincts were to create a repo event for it and nostr:npub1896p07z8xngpct5ma00mdrad4gqfnwfwdqcl706wrm25ajynahhs27x5ge did so.
nostr:naddr1qqzxu6tswvqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dspzqwt5zluywdxsrshfh67lk686m2sqnxuju6p3lul5u8k4fmyf8m00qvzqqqrhny64slsj
weeks went by and then nostr:npub1m4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsajc2jl sent a patch to it. none of the nips repo maintainers as defined by github were automatically tagged in it.
nostr:npub1896p07z8xngpct5ma00mdrad4gqfnwfwdqcl706wrm25ajynahhs27x5ge realised he was listed as the only maintainer and is asking what he can do about that.
how can we make this work better? #ngit #gitworkshop
If the original maintainers are not interested in receiving patches/issues through nostr, the solution is for that someone to create their own fork and use the fork in the "ngit init" event.
Then they can receive patches on their fork and submit Github PRs from their fork to the original repo.
I see this the same way as if the maintiner does not want to package their software for platform X, so a motivated person Y maintains their downstream fork that supports platform X. Downstream forks are very common.
Very impressive. Why store the note content though?
I'm curious if you store all the notes/events with their content or you just keep track of their ID for stat purposes. If the former, I'm curious of your storage needs since it would mean storing every note ever published.
Do you crawl a fixed set of relays? Does it update constantly in real time automatically? Or do you run it once every X amount of time?
I get it's not a popular answer 😉 but we should be pragmatic and meet information halfway by any means/memes necessary.
Look for mastodon people, lots of interesting people there
The test is over people, it works, stop zapping it, let's move on!
Robosats is not completely decentralized (it's federated) but at least different federations share the same order book, although the order marker needs to decide a priori which Federation will "host" and arbitrage the order.
I didn't know that bisq/haveno had this issue. I also don't know how arbitraging will work for Haveno. Bisq used timelocked multisig, but there's no such thing for Monero...
I disagree that PGP is "broken". Bad UX? Yes. But it works.
Also, if most people use pgp, the network effect is a huge reason to keep using it.
I knew it that at some point you would sybil attack us!
Isn't losing PGP compatibility a big minus?
Ok it shows up now, it was probably just slow because of Tor.
You already risked way to much by being physically at conferences. I would never do that
Yes, thanks! Weird that it does not show up on amethyst, but in the end maybe not, since nostrudel is using outbox, amethyst is not 🤔