Oddbean new post about login | logout Complicated tlv format was a horrible idea imo, could have just been a user editable url
Also when you need to quickly refer to a key without relays, most people will simply create an empty nprofile, which is fine for uniformity but will be a non-stable identifier when comparing to your nprofile with relays. I tend to look at the end of my npub when identifying it.
> could have just been a user editable url What does this mean, and how does it work?
like nostr://npub?r=wss://relay.damus.io&r=wss://relay.primal.io User inspectable and editable
and we wouldn’t have had the duplication between nprofile and nevent, but the great centralized nostr nips council deemed it so and call npub a “horrendously bad idea”. Come on 🙄
Are you coming back to inline imeta as well? :) I have the exact same feeling about it.
I never had a problem with it, other than weird url parser differences
I hate the fact that people copy paste image urls outside of our clients (we could bring imeta together) and all the imeta info is gone.
yes that is a nice benefit
Maybe we can do a new uri standard for blossom (server info + imeta) and make that the main thing on Nostr. In that way, we can avoid interference with existing URL params on images and adds the ability to figure out which server to use when downloading hashed images/videos.
If you're talking about my comment I was calling note1 a bad idea, not npubs. On the other hand maybe we could have avoided the bech32 stuff entirely and made everything more readable if we just had done something like: npub://<hex-key>?relay=... nevent://<hex-id>?relay=... Although there are benefits to bech32 too, so it's hard to judge.
yes, bech32 makes sense for a binary key, but there's not a strong reason to encode the text-based data within the bech32 data
nostr: would be more similar to magnet: URIs then one drawback is that naive, ad-hoc, usually regexp-based parsers have problems with complicated URIs, and highlight the inner URLs instead of the outer one for example in nostter your post looks like https://media.x0f.org/12771040ca3301a3b1529cc0f4dde34875afe938fd13238d84aa72c5f55a3faa.png but that's not a good reason not to do it
needs some work… I’m leaning toward nostr: npub?r=relay.damus.io https://i.nostr.build/SneWOs8RHPpd3wpM.jpg
I like notes and npubs - easy to enter in a command line app or generate a QR code for capture. I find adding the protocol clunky and add modify for internal app use. I hate dealing with percent encoding. Ok, for deep link handling by apps/platforms but that’s not my context. This is what I do: npub -> hex string, bytes, or object note -> hex string relay url -> add wss:// or ws:// add - if already specified leave alone mint url -> add https:// or http:// - if already specified, leave alone
leaning toward nostr:npub?r=relay.damus.io&r=relay.primal.net No percent encoding needed unless explicit ws:// hex would be really bad, i moved away from hex for a very specific reason: its easy to mix up your private and public key if they are hex. I accidentally pasted my private key as hex on the network
most clients expose npub, so copying npub around is more descriptive, its compatible with nostr: mentions, etc. no need for a custom scheme for each entity
I love the idea of URLs with nostr entities and inline relay hints. This type of URL syntax also models nostr architecture very well. Instead of specifying a host location and then the desired resource like most URLs, we specify the desired resource, and then the host locations where that could be found, which is exactly the architectural paradigm shift that defines Nostr We probably want to double-check RFC 3986 to help define some of the details. For example, we probably want to use “nostr:” instead of “nostr://“ because the “//“ denotes an “authority” (Section 3.2) that controls the namespace of the remainder of the URL, which would not be the case since the protocol would define the meaning of the query parameters. Furthermore, I am not sure if we can repeat keys on the query parameters, and if it would be compatible with most URL parsing libraries. Section 3.4 of the spec doesn’t seem to forbid it, but might be good to test with major libraries. If not, maybe comma separated values on the relay hints could work as well cc @hzrd149 I think this type of URL syntax would work well on Blossom too
really? I thought repeating keys is pretty common. I’ve used it a lot
I believe its supported in most web browsers too https://caniuse.com/urlsearchparams
I haven’t noticed repeated param keys on URLs in practice, which made me form an incorrect assumption If it works, then I agree having repeated “r” query entries is a good syntax!
