monlovesmango

>The only point of the serialization change is to make sure only clients and relays that have seen NIP-42 and are minimally aware of the difference between public and protected...

>The proposal to change the serialization minimizes the existence of 3rd set of both relays and clients, better protecting events that should be protected. agree this is the case. I...

how about "Publication Protected Events"? or "Publish Protected Events"?

>How is this better than https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/1030? its not better, its just supposed to be complementary.

heres a relevant discussion we've had around this topic: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/891 this https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/891#issuecomment-1823245472 summarizes some of the previous PRs pertinent to that discussion.

I think it would be better to define a way in the auth flow to authorize a 3rd party pubkey to access your events in real time. this would allow...

>And the new serialization is really great to auto-prevent someone from broadcasting the event to relays that wouldn't honor the event access rule cause cause they didn't implement NIP-42. this...

ok i'll write a nip up for this just to have it. my main (selfish) motivation for this was to enable nostrConnect signing messages over authenticated relays (since the client...

>@vitorpamplona is too quiet while we DEFACE!! his PR hehehe he is too kind to us 1. agree. my opinion is that it would be good to be a queryable...

agree. but I think the tag based access control is worse for the network (bc then relays need to run queries first before knowing whether auth is needed, and then...