hodlbod

> What if someone replies to the annotation event? I guess I can show it as a reply to the main event. This is probably ok. If annotations aren't supported,...

I'm with @vitorpamplona on team NIP 32 or granular events. Aside from that, I think there are use cases for this, but fewer than people think. WoT is very important,...

I actually like the judge% concept, it could be built as "delegate more WoT points to this person", which is a useful end-user concept.

I don't like that it couples access control to kind. This means we'd have to create duplicate kinds for anything we wanted this behavior for.

This seems fine, pretty clean and clear, although my preference would be to make the following changes: - Use `L` and `l`. It doesn't really matter that `G` labels are...

> My primary argument against this is collisions. The only possible danger is that _only for events using multiple `L` tags_, you may fetch some false positives. But that should...

I think if we're going to restructure things that heavily, we might as well get rid of the NIP system

Closing this in favor of #746 and #686

Closed due to lack of interest

I think this goes more under "best practices" than "protocol definition". There's been some discussion about how to design events going forward to avoid too many conflicts like this, but...