Oddbean

The biggest beef I have with this is that people demand integrity from media host, and then that go ahead and use imgproxy or any other alternative to perform their tweaks and present it to the user. How the fuck is it still the same thing when it is wasting hosts bandwidth and yet achieving nothing in terms of integrity? As for the video, uploaded can confirm that the content is the same after the fact and accept optimized and transcoded version and have a hash for it, and problem solved 🐶🐾🫡

I agree with you about imgproxy, but then there's no NIP for "accepting optimized version after the fact" and I'd say it's probably much trickier than you say. Anyways, you don't have to offer this option if you don't like it, I'm just comparing the NIPs.

If there is a good use case and it is really needed, it can be offered for sure. The problem I have is that I am wasting a ton of time on implementing something just to start over to implement some other hype. This is just wasting time and effort, instead of trying to innovate and find a better approach. Content hashes do exist, and if that is needed, it can be done 🐶🐾🫡

100% agree, that's why I'm saying offering this as nip96 option (even if paid, restricted etc) could serve those use cases, and I'm guilty as anyone in digging hyped stuff without looking through existing NIPs first. And you sure didn't waste time implementing nip96, it seems to be quite good, even if a bit too verbose for my taste.

There is a PR now to simplify it. Please submit a PR that will request immutability of the media. Also allow for the host to reject the upload based on presence of private metadata and viruses/exploits. Once you have it in, I will make sure to comment and implement once it’s merged 🐶🐾🫡