Oddbean new post about login | logout This is so sad, I'll retract my Chachi recommendation.
Took me a few minutes. The relay room spec is 80% copied from NIP-29, I hope we can converge into something we all implement and don't fragment communities. We are already small so having different specs hurts both approaches imho.
I agree completely, but I tried to talk @hodlbod into it so much and in the end he just got more and more entrenched in his position. I sincerely believe the latest update to NIP-29 for "unmanaged" groups brings everything he wants into NIP-29 and Chachi and the existence of https://chachi.chat/pyramid.fiatjaf.com proves it already. You could just have "h" tags arbitrarily assigned by users to create new "rooms" in unmanaged relays and we would have the "Discord" experience (which to me is horrible but that doesn't matter). Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't grasp what that is from hodlbod's explanations. Please let me know if you understand it.
I'll write a blog post this week. My thoughts have crystallized a lot since I failed to explain my position to you
I think the same but I might be missing something too, it's kinda late and I'm tired. I fail to see why we need a new spec when NIP-29 has everything needed to make a Discord-like client. The moderation primitives are optional, if your relay doesn't support NIP-29 you can still have unmanaged groups/channels and handle read and write access at the relay level. I hope I'm wrong but looks like a severe case of NIH syndrome.
I agree. I only used different kinds/tags to avoid stepping on toes. They can be reconciled, but I still have some big reservations about 29
There must be a way to make both specs converge, as I see it they are trying to solve the same provlem in slightly different ways.
Part of the problem is that there are 10 or so problems being solved, but they're all coupled to the core paradigm of what constitues a group. If that can't be reconciled, we may be able to get some small wins on common event kinds, but the two specs will still be doing incompatible things.
Here's an attempt: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/1591 Minimal (no) changes required of NIP 29 clients, although it's going to be a pain for me. The one addition to the semantics is that shallow reply hierarchies be explicitly encouraged, since I don't want people missing replies as a result of which client they're using. This is just a first step toward merging the two specs. This is the easiest place to start. Maybe rooms can be merged with h tags later, although I'm less optimistic about that one.
Pong!