hodlbod

> The point is that the nip explicitly requires a bot to handle this. There must not be a human in the loop. Seems unenforceable, and like it would raise...

> The fundamental problem I see with relay-based access control is that any access to controlled resources must necessarily pass through only a single resource. The same events passing through...

Only #875, but the way it works is you basically set up the group to point to two relays which are run independently, each of which enforces auth. Increases possibility...

This has the same problem that allowing tagged users to delete events has, which is that it completely breaks all use of shared keys. In #875, all members of a...

I don't think adding a value helps at all, because it's easy to detect the difference between 04 and 44 (04 has `?iv=` in the ciphertext), and nip 44 is...

> I should be able to paste an entire nip04 ciphertext into a note without a breaking. Coracle detects encryption _type_ based on `iv=?` but only attempts decryption in situations...

I think postell's law applies here. You have to sanitize it anyway, so you might as well also slap a protocol on the beginning too. Same thing with relay url...

I prefer (and implement) `a` tag deletions, where the referenced event is deleted only if its created_at is before the delete's created_at. This makes deletes soft by default (unless Amethyst...

> This is better. I wish it had been written to the NIP. I don't think it's too late, as far as I can tell relays don't seem to implement...

> One advantage of my approach here of replacing the replaceable with an empty event would be that it would be backwards-compatible with relays that don't implement actual deletes. I...