Leo Wandersleb

Well, I wasted enough time on this and will point to this PR - merged or not - if others want to embark on this endeavour of making events smaller.

@jb55 yes, kind of. It is as fiatjaf said "opinionated" and saying that space optimizations are plenty possible but so far were discarded as premature optimization in favour of remaining...

I withdraw this PR for not being really actionable.

I don't see a real problem this nip would solve. It would clearly not be nip **5**. * OP please suggest an alternative nip number. 34 might be still free....

This nip would create events that are not compatible with any relay. Author would not match with who signs. Basically: ``` author: Alice sig: Alice2 footnote: msg: Alice2 may sign...

I am very confused. My proposal contains no events that are any special by today's standard. Alice publishes and signs a delegation event for Alice2. Alice2 does her thing as...

Just like nip-21 non-public DMs, this nip goes against mirroring events between relays but being less about privacy (groups can't hold a secret), maybe the intended goals can be achieved...

> It seems like this NIP bakes in the assumption that relays are trustworthy, and the main goal is preventing other clients from seeing their events. That doesn't coincide with...

If you want to do **public** group chats on for example kind 42. Who would use kind 42 for broadcasts? All would include the `m` tag but by returning all...

> Even though you can use filters to limit the scope of the events you receive, your client is still entitled to all events the relay has to offer. "entitled"???...