Presumably based on your previous points you don't think it'...

ChipTuner

npub1qdjn8j4gwgmkj3k5un775nq6q3q7mguv5tvajstmkdsqdja2havq03fqm7

hex

93bf226569504707ba084e16e20b67ab71f36cb4a688013f49d3f0f1549c081f

nevent

nevent1qqsf80ezv454q3c8hgyyu9hzpdn6ku0ndj62dzqp8aya8u832jwqs8cprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsqxefne258ydmfgm2wfl02fsdqgs0d5wx29kweg9amxcqxew4t7kqwqpauc

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-06-09T19:25:54Z

↳ 回复 事件不存在

d665a1f0eaa21c7639df0b0058279d2da95738e89fb1b365e53c3d636986b767...

Presumably based on your previous points you don't think it's a good idea? I was torn. It seemed like a useful feature for users to be able to recover history at some arbitrary point when the sign the new revocation. Saying "everything up to this point is good, after this don't trust it" In the absence of the timestamps or even rovocation data, the chain of trust is lost.

I also like the idea of deniability here. Users could completely orphan a chain and deny they were ever attached simply by removing it from the delegation list. Revocation only exists to establish desired continuity.

原始 JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "93bf226569504707ba084e16e20b67ab71f36cb4a688013f49d3f0f1549c081f",
  "pubkey": "036533caa872376946d4e4fdea4c1a0441eda38ca2d9d9417bb36006cbaabf58",
  "created_at": 1781033154,
  "tags": [
    [
      "e",
      "f9901260bc194e772513aa63bc4c5e4696eaaad9168d08f4d547c18e46eae264",
      "",
      "root",
      "577de06dce160a0379163a4bb7b680be3e0a0e1c68de6e6ba8c01134b44064dd"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "d665a1f0eaa21c7639df0b0058279d2da95738e89fb1b365e53c3d636986b767",
      "wss://nos.lol/",
      "reply",
      "576d23dc3db2056d208849462fee358cf9f0f3310a2c63cb6c267a4b9f5848f9"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "577de06dce160a0379163a4bb7b680be3e0a0e1c68de6e6ba8c01134b44064dd"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "32e1827635450ebb3c5a7d12c1f8e7b2b514439ac10a67eef3d9fd9c5c68e245"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "930ccef12372dd2f16057cfc54f0dbd94335d8b51b4e2737236b00cab718fcd9"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "a9434ee165ed01b286becfc2771ef1705d3537d051b387288898cc00d5c885be"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "036533caa872376946d4e4fdea4c1a0441eda38ca2d9d9417bb36006cbaabf58"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "d1a61498f4b1dc26df0becd1a3e9e88f355fb614b771e8b5b277d0ff99a82a23"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "576d23dc3db2056d208849462fee358cf9f0f3310a2c63cb6c267a4b9f5848f9"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "Presumably based on your previous points you don't think it's a good idea? I was torn. It seemed like a useful feature for users to be able to recover history at some arbitrary point when the sign the new revocation. Saying \"everything up to this point is good, after this don't trust it\" In the absence of the timestamps or even rovocation data, the chain of trust is lost. \n\nI also like the idea of deniability here. Users could completely orphan a chain and deny they were ever attached simply by removing it from the delegation list. Revocation _only_ exists to establish desired continuity. ",
  "sig": "7a5480c524db709b8c77fe2dd1a592e036d8462f0a8e7c51c5e1726650c42dc429171c32becd3c5660e1c25b1a07f77e34534dfc51fbcf2a024822ac98584ba9"
}