Linked cryptographic identities

[franzaps]

Rendered

[vitorpamplona]

Nice! Is it necessary to index the <type>:<fingerprint>? Do we expect people to query by it?

[franzaps]

@vitorpamplona Thanks and yes, absolutely. This way coming across any PGP key or certificate in the wild one can check if that identity is also on nostr.

In my particular case for zap.store, it's one of the ways to link APKs with developers on nostr.

@fiatjaf this is my second attempt after failure with NIP-39, what do you think?

[dskvr]

Looks good. Seems like this could also link other nostr pubkeys, I could use this now.

Is it necessary to index the <type>:<fingerprint>

Necessary for my use case as well.

[franzaps]

@Semisol if you confirm it will get merged I can make a PR to NIP-39

[franzaps]

@staab @fiatjaf @vitorpamplona This one is good to merge. I'm happy to create a PR on NIP-39 if I get a confirmation that it will actually get merged.

[staab]

It seems like this does the same thing as NIP 39? I like the dedicated event as an addition, but I would add it as an addition to NIP 39, unless I'm misunderstanding its purpose. Is this implemented anywhere?

[franzaps]

It seems like this does the same thing as NIP 39? I like the dedicated event as an addition, but I would add it as an addition to NIP 39, unless I'm misunderstanding its purpose. Is this implemented anywhere?

It used to be in NIP-39, but was flawed, and semisol silently removed it instead of asking for a fix. This is a new proposal. I'm fine with either kind 10069 or kind 0. I can create a PR to NIP-39 but I first wanted to make sure it will be merged.

Yes it's being implemented! Developers on zap.store will start using this very soon. I started producing these events but only on relay.zap.store.

[caesar]

I'd love to see a standardised way to claim an OpenPGP identity in Nostr, but I have a few thoughts:

• I think it would make more sense to add these identities to NIP-39 instead of adding another message type; I don't understand the benefit to there being a new message type which almost duplicates NIP-39's functionality.

• I think the verbiage of the English-language message to be signed is unnecessarily verbose. It would probably make sense for the sake of consistency to use the same proof string used by NIP-39: Verifying that I control the following Nostr public key: "<npub encoded public key>"

• I think it would probably make sense to use the prefix openpgp4fpr, which is a standard. Note that PGP and GPG are the names of software, the encryption standard they implement is called OpenPGP.

[franzaps]

@caesar Yes this will be added to NIP-39. I don't mind updating the spec to what you suggest.

[franzaps]

Closing in favor of https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/1335