I understand that position, however I think it depends on how the kind=5 deletion event was specified, and the relay’s policy with regards to storing replaced events.
NIP-09 allows either the ‘e’ tag (specific event id) or the ‘a’ tag (“kind:pubkey:d-identifier”).
If the deletion event specifies a particular event by its id (‘e’ tag), then it’s an open question how to proceed.
Consider these different cases:
## Delete then replace
1. User creates replaceable event A.
2. User deletes replaceable event A with ‘e’ tag specificity.
3. User creates replacement event B.
Expected behavior: REQs receive B.
## Replace then delete original
1. User creates replaceable event A.
2. User creates replacement event B.
3. User deletes replaceable event A with ‘e’ tag specificity.
Expected behavior: REQs receive B.
## Replace, then delete replacement
1. User creates replaceable event A.
2. User creates replacement event B.
3. User deletes replaceable event B with ‘e’ tag specificity.
Expected behavior: ???
IMO, the correct behavior is to serve event A. A is still a valid event. Its replacement was deleted.
An alternative interpretation would be that REQs get nothing since the relay receiving B immediately purged A on the grounds that it was replaced.
To my knowledge, NIP-01 and NIP-09 do not address this specific case. NIP-01 states that “even if the relay has more than one version stored, it SHOULD return just the latest one.” It does not specify what should happen if the latest one was deleted.
NIP-01 continues with “These are just conventions and relay implementations may differ.” I interpret this to mean that the handling of replaced events is a matter of relay policy, especially when incorporating the additional complication of NIP-09 deletes.
I understand that position, however I think it depends on how the kind=5 deletion event was specified, and the relay’s policy with regards to storing replaced events.
NIP-09 allows either the ‘e’ tag (specific event id) or the ‘a’ tag (“kind:pubkey:d-identifier”).
If the deletion event specifies a particular event by its id (‘e’ tag), then it’s an open question how to proceed.
Consider these different cases:
## Delete then replace
1. User creates replaceable event A.
2. User deletes replaceable event A with ‘e’ tag specificity.
3. User creates replacement event B.
Expected behavior: REQs receive B.
## Replace then delete original
1. User creates replaceable event A.
2. User creates replacement event B.
3. User deletes replaceable event A with ‘e’ tag specificity.
Expected behavior: REQs receive B.
## Replace, then delete replacement
1. User creates replaceable event A.
2. User creates replacement event B.
3. User deletes replaceable event B with ‘e’ tag specificity.
Expected behavior: ???
IMO, the correct behavior is to serve event A. A is still a valid event. Its replacement was deleted.
An alternative interpretation would be that REQs get nothing since the relay receiving B immediately purged A on the grounds that it was replaced.
To my knowledge, NIP-01 and NIP-09 do not address this specific case. NIP-01 states that “even if the relay has more than one version stored, it SHOULD return just the latest one.” It does not specify what should happen if the latest one was deleted.
NIP-01 continues with “These are just conventions and relay implementations may differ.” I interpret this to mean that the handling of replaced events is a matter of relay policy, especially when incorporating the additional complication of NIP-09 deletes.
I understand that position, however I think it depends on how the kind=5 deletion event was specified, and the relay’s policy with regards to storing replaced events.
NIP-09 allows either the ‘e’ tag (specific event id) or the ‘a’ tag (“kind:pubkey:d-identifier”).
If the deletion event specifies a particular event by its id (‘e’ tag), then it’s an open question how to proceed.
Consider these different cases:
## Delete then replace
1. User creates replaceable event A.
2. User deletes replaceable event A with ‘e’ tag specificity.
3. User creates replacement event B.
Expected behavior: REQs receive B.
## Replace then delete original
1. User creates replaceable event A.
2. User creates replacement event B.
3. User deletes replaceable event A with ‘e’ tag specificity.
Expected behavior: REQs receive B.
## Replace, then delete replacement
1. User creates replaceable event A.
2. User creates replacement event B.
3. User deletes replaceable event B with ‘e’ tag specificity.
Expected behavior: ???
IMO, the correct behavior is to serve event A. A is still a valid event. Its replacement was deleted.
An alternative interpretation would be that REQs get nothing since the relay receiving B immediately purged A on the grounds that it was replaced.
To my knowledge, NIP-01 and NIP-09 do not address this specific case. NIP-01 states that “even if the relay has more than one version stored, it SHOULD return just the latest one.” It does not specify what should happen if the latest one was deleted.
NIP-01 continues with “These are just conventions and relay implementations may differ.” I interpret this to mean that the handling of replaced events is a matter of relay policy, especially when incorporating the additional complication of NIP-09 deletes.
I understand that position, however I think it depends on how the kind=5 deletion event was specified, and the relay’s policy with regards to storing replaced events.
NIP-09 allows either the ‘e’ tag (specific event id) or the ‘a’ tag (“kind:pubkey:d-identifier”).
If the deletion event specifies a particular event by its id (‘e’ tag), then it’s an open question how to proceed.
Consider these different cases:
## Delete then replace
1. User creates replaceable event A.
2. User deletes replaceable event A with ‘e’ tag specificity.
3. User creates replacement event B.
Expected behavior: REQs receive B.
## Replace then delete original
1. User creates replaceable event A.
2. User creates replacement event B.
3. User deletes replaceable event A with ‘e’ tag specificity.
Expected behavior: REQs receive B.
## Replace, then delete replacement
1. User creates replaceable event A.
2. User creates replacement event B.
3. User deletes replaceable event B with ‘e’ tag specificity.
Expected behavior: ???
IMO, the correct behavior is to serve event A. A is still a valid event. Its replacement was deleted.
An alternative interpretation would be that REQs get nothing since the relay receiving B immediately purged A on the grounds that it was replaced.
To my knowledge, NIP-01 and NIP-09 do not address this specific case. NIP-01 states that “even if the relay has more than one version stored, it SHOULD return just the latest one.” It does not specify what should happen if the latest one was deleted.
NIP-01 continues with “These are just conventions and relay implementations may differ.” I interpret this to mean that the handling of replaced events is a matter of relay policy, especially when incorporating the additional complication of NIP-09 deletes.
No, I don't want to reconstruct the key, I just want these providers to construct signatures, which apparently FROST can do safely -- I don't get why you can't do that with MuSig2 (wait, I guess it just doesn't work because MuSig2 has the "distributed key generation" step built in).
So I, as a user, don't have to do any cryptography or hold any keys during my daily life as a Nostr user, I can just instruct clients to fetch signatures from a server somewhere, and that server will coordinate with the 3 entities that hold my key shards to get a signature, then return the signature to the clients and, boom, I have a signed event.
No, I don't want to reconstruct the key, I just want these providers to construct signatures, which apparently FROST can do safely -- I don't get why you can't do that with MuSig2 (wait, I guess it just doesn't work because MuSig2 has the "distributed key generation" step built in).
So I, as a user, don't have to do any cryptography or hold any keys during my daily life as a Nostr user, I can just instruct clients to fetch signatures from a server somewhere, and that server will coordinate with the 3 entities that hold my key shards to get a signature, then return the signature to the clients and, boom, I have a signed event.
No, I don't want to reconstruct the key, I just want these providers to construct signatures, which apparently FROST can do safely -- I don't get why you can't do that with MuSig2 (wait, I guess it just doesn't work because MuSig2 has the "distributed key generation" step built in).
So I, as a user, don't have to do any cryptography or hold any keys during my daily life as a Nostr user, I can just instruct clients to fetch signatures from a server somewhere, and that server will coordinate with the 3 entities that hold my key shards to get a signature, then return the signature to the clients and, boom, I have a signed event.
No, I don't want to reconstruct the key, I just want these providers to construct signatures, which apparently FROST can do safely -- I don't get why you can't do that with MuSig2 (wait, I guess it just doesn't work because MuSig2 has the "distributed key generation" step built in).
So I, as a user, don't have to do any cryptography or hold any keys during my daily life as a Nostr user, I can just instruct clients to fetch signatures from a server somewhere, and that server will coordinate with the 3 entities that hold my key shards to get a signature, then return the signature to the clients and, boom, I have a signed event.
It only works on a short term time scale. On the long term if they are obligating themselves with paper debts that they can’t fulfill, then it will bite them in the ass. #Bitcoin doesn’t care
It only works on a short term time scale. On the long term if they are obligating themselves with paper debts that they can’t fulfill, then it will bite them in the ass. #Bitcoin doesn’t care
It only works on a short term time scale. On the long term if they are obligating themselves with paper debts that they can’t fulfill, then it will bite them in the ass. #Bitcoin doesn’t care
It only works on a short term time scale. On the long term if they are obligating themselves with paper debts that they can’t fulfill, then it will bite them in the ass. #Bitcoin doesn’t care
It only works on a short term time scale. On the long term if they are obligating themselves with paper debts that they can’t fulfill, then it will bite them in the ass. #Bitcoin doesn’t care
agreed, imo the best way to improve this is to buy and move to cold storage ... Leave less and less corn to be played with
agreed, imo the best way to improve this is to buy and move to cold storage ... Leave less and less corn to be played with
agreed, imo the best way to improve this is to buy and move to cold storage ... Leave less and less corn to be played with
agreed, imo the best way to improve this is to buy and move to cold storage ... Leave less and less corn to be played with
while の引数の sleep 1 は常に 0 終了するので毎秒実行されるよ。
while の引数の sleep 1 は常に 0 終了するので毎秒実行されるよ。
while の引数の sleep 1 は常に 0 終了するので毎秒実行されるよ。
while の引数の sleep 1 は常に 0 終了するので毎秒実行されるよ。