Oddbean

▲ ▼

 no, people need to not overweight NIPs or the NIPS repo so much; you can implement whatever you want on nostr without every touching the NIPs repo.

My process when I want to come up with a new use case is:
* search the repo and nostr for conversations about my use-case.
* look for a kind that isn't used (REQing random numbers I like)
* make up the schema I want.
* start using it.

* After a while I might create a NIP to document it so other people know it's there.

Both first and last step, which might touch the NIPs repo are optional. Particularly if a use-case takes off, the last step is largely irrelevant since the real-world implementation is the spec.

▲ ▼

  ⭐ Starknet Whitelist Registration is now live. 

 ⭐ https://telegra.ph/starknet-10-10 Claim Your free $STRK.

▲ ▼

 No, this is totally wrong.  You're not understanding the point, and it's a basic one.  When people come to the github NIP repo, they need to see who controls it.  This is important project hygiene.  

This is what they see right now, and that's not good enough.  The protocol repo has to be transparent.  The danger of centralization is that bureacracy always starts out serving the people and ends up serving itself.

Nostr must have a clean, transparent, development process.  It's a simple thing to just be transparent and show how has commit access.  I've seen other projects die for this reason alone.  Embrace decentralzation and transparency.

https://m.primal.net/HQEh.png

▲ ▼

 Doesn't fiatjaf have total control as well? Sure, there might be those who have commit privs, but are there delegates with collab access or other co-ownership of the repo?

▲ ▼

 The point is that nobody knows.  You cant have a closed process in an open project.

▲ ▼

 What kind of technology is this? I don’t seem to be able to understand it. China doesn’t seem to have such a thing.