hodlbod

Cool, last thing is to change XX to a nip number of your choice

@pablof7z serialization for signatures is defined in NIP 01 using a list of event keys, ignoring any additional key attached by whomever, this won't cause any problems with that.

I don't know how relays would handle the extra field, probably depends on implementation. Coracle at least would just ignore it. I think 1. we need something like this, and...

@arthurfranca that's correct, but of course this is all the hallucinations of a deranged mind at this point. But I think it would work. So what we need is 1....

> Counts are mostly irrelevant because, ideally, clients should not rely on a single relay to download information from. Yes, but recommended extensions can potentially fix this. I.e., you ask...

I wrote that NIP specifically to provoke conversations like this one.

In fact I am

I've proposed a potential solution to this problem a few times since February, but no one has seemed interested in talking about it, and I haven't had time to really...

@leoperegrino very creative solution. This could be implemented with a new event kind. These would become stale very quickly, so queries for the metadata would include a restrictive `since`. If...

I like it, do we have numbers on how many paths are spurious vs legitimately virtual? Mike was saying there were lots of paths pointing to the same relay, but...