I often think about how the base architecture and design of ...

Peg Otis

npub1ngs4dyj46z36ne6lrh3wfjyrexlzu4s43plj9vhv76cczw7dtp7sf96dlu

hex

835b328cdc9cb340b54cdf6164bc511a81ad2b24e8fee9265be6cfc281a5d71e

nevent

nevent1qqsgxkej3nwfev6qk4xd7ctyh3g34qdd9vjw3lhfyed7dn7zsxjaw8sprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsf5g2kjf2apgafua03mchyezpun03w2c2cslezktk0dvvp80x4slgk034yd

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-05-24T14:50:40Z

↳ 回复 事件不存在

11494f9129a7bf5914306e1349953081572c3c6976baf57f340bf2f29dd691de...

I often think about how the base architecture and design of Nostr is at the level of a footnote of the specifications for security and internet protocols we use every day. For that matter, the bitcoin whitepaper describes something just a notch above that. Both camps inflate the meaning of something that is pretty simple. This isn't necessarily bad, but many people sweated the details you two are pointing out. It is easy to point out flaws in what exists. It is hard to get a world full of smart, experienced people to capture that, circle RFCs and standards, agree, and put it down in writing for further review by peers. It is funny... I've often brought up Henry Story's work with WebID. He was also a Nostr user. He and others at W3C managed to affect the way TLS client certs were handled in browsers. It was also fully distributed, but the root tech used x.509, which had options that are useful to the OP. I get zero response from the Nostr folks about WebID. Tim (the Nostr doc safe Tim) responded with "yeah... I know about DIDs", which, of course, is completely different than WebID. Anyway... this is interesting to me. (Now, FIPS does have some serious design chops... I'm still digesting that.)

原始 JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "835b328cdc9cb340b54cdf6164bc511a81ad2b24e8fee9265be6cfc281a5d71e",
  "pubkey": "9a21569255d0a3a9e75f1de2e4c883c9be2e5615887f22b2ecf6b1813bcd587d",
  "created_at": 1779634240,
  "tags": [
    [
      "p",
      "c21b1a6cdb247ccbd938dcb16b15a4fa382d00ffd7b12d5cbbad172a0cd4d170",
      "wss://relay.primal.net/v1/",
      "ABH3PO"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "8fb140b4e8ddef97ce4b821d247278a1a4353362623f64021484b372f948000c",
      "wss://nostr21.com/",
      "The Fishcake🐶🐾"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "11494f9129a7bf5914306e1349953081572c3c6976baf57f340bf2f29dd691de",
      "wss://relay.primal.net/v1/",
      "root",
      "c21b1a6cdb247ccbd938dcb16b15a4fa382d00ffd7b12d5cbbad172a0cd4d170"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "I often think about how the base architecture and design of Nostr is at the level of a footnote of the specifications for security and internet protocols we use every day. For that matter, the bitcoin whitepaper describes something just a notch above that. Both camps inflate the meaning of something that is pretty simple. This isn't necessarily bad, but many people sweated the details you two are pointing out. It is *easy* to point out flaws in what exists. It is hard to get a world full of smart, experienced people to capture that, circle RFCs and standards, agree, and put it down in writing for further review by peers.  It is funny... I've often brought up Henry Story's work with WebID. He was also a Nostr user. He and others at W3C managed to affect the way TLS client certs were handled in browsers. It was also fully distributed, but the root tech used x.509, which had options that are useful to the OP.  I get zero response from the Nostr folks about WebID.  Tim (the Nostr doc safe Tim) responded with \"yeah... I know about DIDs\", which, of course, is completely different than WebID. Anyway... this is interesting to me.  (Now, FIPS does have some serious design chops... I'm still digesting that.)",
  "sig": "4678614432d4d74b70918d2f7b69e777f9fcc86348250b23696a27e10d208af211c53ba5e258a0da7dbb728164c5e4fbfce89d76389d7eff999c0d760ed11ec8"
}