I wonder whether there may be a use for these attestations i...

inkan

npub16xnpfx85k8wzdhctang6860g3u64lds5kac73ddjwlg0lxdg9g3su56z6l

hex

0a23ac81da5fdeb1d85025e783cd8cb66957541bcece7c347a6e1b7db3b94582

nevent

nevent1qqsq5gavs8d9lh43mpgzteurekxtv62h2sduannux3axuxmakwu5tqsprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsdrfs5nr6trhpxmu97e5dra85g7d2lkc2twu0gkke8058lnx5z5gcqej3m6

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-03-25T16:14:42Z

↳ Reply to Nathan Day (npub1cn670f663n3ks02jnnlsvd5y88zjnefy8343ykaxs7y3nzzketrsrjwt8a)

Simplified landing page just dropped for nostr:npub1hgkywhtudhuf0wwwh4q60fukpefwwgq9qaf83nm0naeah599c9nstxnesc 👀 https://relay.day.ag/80b10f6a9453e58...

I wonder whether there may be a use for these attestations in connection with the 31045 timestamp events or the 31055 delegation info events that are produced by Inkan.

When I implemented these, I was thinking of adding an event type that gives other pubkeys the ability to attest that they have confirmed the correctness of the content of the 31045 / 31055 event against what's recorded on the blockchain. I actually also thought of implementing an event type that gives other pubkeys the ability to also disconfirm the 31045 / 31055 events, i.e. to state that they tried to confirm what the 31045 / 31055 event is saying by checking the blockchain but were unable to confirm.

I ultimately decided against implementing these additional event types since it seemed to create epicycles that seemed unnecessary. Rather than attesting to the correctness of the content of the target event, it seemed easier for the auditing pubkey to simply republish that content itself. In other words, rather than publishing an event confirming that the timestamp information in a 31045 event is indeed recorded on Bitcoin, it seemed easier for the auditing pubkey to simply republish that information in its own 31045 event.

Still it feels like there may be a use for these attestations. Maybe.

Raw JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "0a23ac81da5fdeb1d85025e783cd8cb66957541bcece7c347a6e1b7db3b94582",
  "pubkey": "d1a61498f4b1dc26df0becd1a3e9e88f355fb614b771e8b5b277d0ff99a82a23",
  "created_at": 1774455282,
  "tags": [
    [
      "e",
      "678c7210015ac556f23b992dcd041953dfaa5b6b3cb68343fffa46e8d208b989",
      "wss://relay.primal.net/",
      "root",
      "c4f5e7a75a8ce3683d529cff06368439c529e5243c6b125ba68789198856cac7"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "ba2c475d7c6df897b9cebd41a7a7960e52e72005075278cf6f9f73dbd0a5c167"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "c4f5e7a75a8ce3683d529cff06368439c529e5243c6b125ba68789198856cac7"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "I wonder whether there may be a use for these attestations in connection with the 31045 timestamp events or the 31055 delegation info events that are produced by Inkan.\n\nWhen I implemented these, I was thinking of adding an event type that gives other pubkeys the ability to attest that they have confirmed the correctness of the content of the 31045 / 31055 event against what's recorded on the blockchain. I actually also thought of implementing an event type that gives other pubkeys the ability to also disconfirm the 31045 / 31055 events, i.e. to state that they tried to confirm what the 31045 / 31055 event is saying by checking the blockchain but were unable to confirm.\n\nI ultimately decided against implementing these additional event types since it seemed to create epicycles that seemed unnecessary. Rather than attesting to the correctness of the content of the target event, it seemed easier for the auditing pubkey to simply republish that content itself. In other words, rather than publishing an event confirming that the timestamp information in a 31045 event is indeed recorded on Bitcoin, it seemed easier for the auditing pubkey to simply republish that information in its own 31045 event.\n\nStill it feels like there may be a use for these attestations. Maybe.",
  "sig": "2a58e9199376ebdeacd31540c3ef16805efd0ab291ed9de0e4cfb0bc6a51dd0c1adabb6ec2036b62aefebc673f62c14efda2a32c660528b77d5ec24120bfa912"
}