Ademan

After sleeping on it for a few days (and being swamped with work, sorry for letting this stagnate). I do think that `sha256( sha256(field-0) || sha256(field-1) || ...)` is probably...

I respect your concern about introducing complexity to NIP-98, but what applications would be adversely affected by this PR? It is strictly additive and optional, it does not invalidate any...

I put a lot of effort into explaining my position, the problem, and laid out alternatives to try to address your concerns, please at least address what I said. *...

There are three concrete proposals now, two of which I made specifically to address your concerns. Do you have any specific feedback to any of them?

> @Ademan > > > Consider that (if NIP numbers weren't scarce) this PR could simply add a new NIP instead of adding to NIP-98. > > Sorry for a...

> NACK to payload_multipart tag or changing NIP-98. ok my concern here is, as far as i can tell NIP-96 is the biggest user of NIP-98 by multiple orders of...

> > NIP-98 should also add some clarifying language like i proposed ,,, NIP-98 should also add some clarifying language like i proposed > > The NACK above is to...

https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/377#issuecomment-1519086914 If this is still fiatjaf's position, it is probably more logistical than anything. > I just think it should be a NIP under the number 100 (yes, I am...

Sorry everyone, in a good week I don't have much time for FOSS during the work week. Last week was not a good week... > @Ademan for thoroughness, perhaps we...

Apologies for letting this lay dormant, but here's my (inexhaustive) survey of NIP-96 implementations. As far as I can tell the *only* implementation that properly¹ implements the NIP is Amethyst....