Michael Dilger

> people should not be using replaceable events for content that is getting updated > I don't think it's wrong I agree with @jb55. We are behaving as if this...

Unix timestamps are far easier. Clients can convert these into RFC-3339 to show to the user. Plus, we cannot change that part of the protocol this late in the game...

> Since that parameter is not adding any new information to the handshake it is unnecessary and strictly speaking should be removed from the spec I disagree. It is only...

I'm not against this proposal. It is a form of delegation, and being more specific about what is being delegated is a good thing IMHO so that as Vitor says,...

It feels to me like "I have a hammer therefore everything is a nail". We have an event structure, therefore everything must be an event. Little about this activity requires...

But if we are going to do this with an event, let's make it an ephemeral event not a kind 5 which propagates and tells others on other relays about...

> Look at kind 5 events as they are. It's an event the user submits to the relay asking the relay to delete their event. It's not a different verb....

Let me make the distinction a bit clearer. Events are transmissible things that flow around the nostr network, notes transmitted through relays. What I'm proposing is not something that should...

In fact I really don't want people seeing that I removed their event from my relay. I'm supposed to create a digitally signed event that proves I did it? Fuck...

It's fine. I closed the PR. But this issue is non-negotiable on my end. I will not be digitally signing such commands which might leak in the case of a...