William Casarin

> What do you think of adding another, optional, layer of indirection in there, for "routing servers" that just stores where each thing is, but not the files themselves, and...

@krisajenkins did you end up working on this? I might take a stab at it if not.

cc @Semisol

> I had this exact same idea a few months back. I'm still not sure if it's good or not. Possible downsides: > > * If a relay goes away,...

> As users can not trust clients or relays to not (re-)propagate their events to relays that doesn't support this NIP, I wonder what would be the real use cases...

> > The relays will reject it because the signature will be invalid. > > Do all relays check signatures today? yes

> > > Given this, does a single adversarial relay, or relay + client combo undo this NIP's stated benefit? > > > > No, because it will still work...

> like a single extra letter appended to the `"sig"` field. And compliant relays will remember to check that and remove that extra letter when the received event has a...

I didn't see the `-` spec until now. I think it's fine and is much simpler. although not sure how long it will take for all relays to implement. strfry...

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 10:29:57AM -0700, Daniel D’Aquino wrote: >> I run 3 private relays for companies. Two use normal relays but one of them runs #1029 (validates...