Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
Mike Dilger | 13 days ago (raw) | export | reply | flag +1 
 NIP-96 or Blossom?

At first glance I don't like either.  Blossom should offer NIP-94 file metadata as HTTP header fields for GET downloads, not just BUD-08 /upload /mirror.  Blossom allows delete, but what if two different users upload the same data?  NIP-96 OTOH has a complex nip96.json file with weird decisions (e.g. waht if api_url specifies a different hostname?  Why have delegated_to_url given that state of affairs? Who is going to understand these complex plan objects?)
▲ ▼
utxo the webmaster 🧑‍💻 | 13 days ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Blossom 100% - way more robust, filenames across servers guaranteed to be the same
▲ ▼
Brunswick | 13 days ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 I'm too tired to read this. TGIF
▲ ▼
arthurfranca | 12 days ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 nip96 at start of PR dicussions had fixed routes with no nip96 config, just like blossom, but stakeholders wanted to specify custom api url to serve files from a different infra. download_url is optionally for using CDNs. Other keys are all optional.

Also nip96 servers, specially free ones,  may want to compress images/videos. That's why the file identifier is the file hash before compression. When using blossom, the client is supposed to compress before uploading.