Badges are "Alice attests to Bob to match a certain criteria...

Leo Wandersleb

npub1gm7tuvr9atc6u7q3gevjfeyfyvmrlul4y67k7u7hcxztz67ceexs078rf6

hex

afaa0954a18e586a349b0d267620c90154297796e032222c25606eeaf9771be1

nevent

nevent1qqs2l2sf2jscukr2xjds6fnkyrysz4pfw7twqv3z9sjkqmh2l9m3hcgprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsydl97xpj74udw0qg5vkfyujyjxd3l706jd0t0w0turp93d0vvung2p77e4

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-04-23T14:02:31Z

↳ Reply to uncleJim21 (npub1g5642xjqyudstx4e9dc702m7suqqvx3djxcdyre38muz7pfwkzzsye9lcr)

Imo the "social" badge use case is kind of played out. What would be more impactful imo is if they started behaving more like LinkedIn credentials: i...

Badges are "Alice attests to Bob to match a certain criteria defined by Alice" and as Nostr is very weak on central authorities, nothing evolved to give worthy badges I know of.

Now if Alice attests to my LinkedIn style c++ skills, how would that be more worthy? Alice would still have to make a name for herself with respect to being good at judging that but it gets to the core of what I want and it's "labels". Just as people might want to know who of their follows is for/against bip110, they might want to know who's good at c++ even if just self-described.

So:

Badges were the most complicated. Somebody defines a badge. The same somebody awards the badge. The awarded has to accept the badge.

Labels are simpler. By labeling your long-form article as for example pro-bip110 you make it discoverable in the bip110 debate.

But that's still more complicated than hashtags. People don't use these neither. But they would also not use #forBIP110 but rather just #BIP110.

As an engineer I want to query all nostriches and put them into buckets but nostriches don't help me by making their minds machine readable. Not without the right incentives.

Raw JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "afaa0954a18e586a349b0d267620c90154297796e032222c25606eeaf9771be1",
  "pubkey": "46fcbe3065eaf1ae7811465924e48923363ff3f526bd6f73d7c184b16bd8ce4d",
  "created_at": 1776952951,
  "tags": [
    [
      "t",
      "forbip110"
    ],
    [
      "t",
      "bip110"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "aafe9015c85dfd9d8fd5b87ea4ccb26e61b0636b232e12d7762264f20dad295e",
      "wss://relay.primal.net/",
      "root",
      "46fcbe3065eaf1ae7811465924e48923363ff3f526bd6f73d7c184b16bd8ce4d"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "ecea2f522401f211e83b1931c4ede53252240d101f8360454f1f42b8be749c2b",
      "wss://relay.primal.net/",
      "reply",
      "4535551a40271b059ab92b71e7ab7e8700061a2d91b0d20f313ef82f052eb085"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "4535551a40271b059ab92b71e7ab7e8700061a2d91b0d20f313ef82f052eb085"
    ],
    [
      "client",
      "jumble"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "Badges are \"Alice attests to Bob to match a certain criteria defined by Alice\" and as Nostr is very weak on central authorities, nothing evolved to give worthy badges I know of.\n\nNow if Alice attests to my  LinkedIn style c++ skills, how would that be more worthy? Alice would still have to make a name for herself with respect to being good at judging that but it gets to the core of what I want and it's \"labels\". Just as people might want to know who of their follows is for/against bip110, they might want to know who's good at c++ even if just self-described.\n\nSo:\n\nBadges were the most complicated. Somebody defines a badge. The same somebody awards the badge. The awarded has to accept the badge.\n\nLabels are simpler. By labeling your long-form article as for example pro-bip110 you make it discoverable in the bip110 debate.\n\nBut that's still more complicated than hashtags. People don't use these neither. But they would also not use #forBIP110 but rather just #BIP110.\n\nAs an engineer I want to query all nostriches and put them into buckets but nostriches don't help me by making their minds machine readable. Not without the right incentives.",
  "sig": "8a5115322f0cd0550629695c46224f5d50c39ec4d03bd30c7b686cec8856374bcf81f028774933f2ab7d5a515c93275153f9984df981ad1714c6e48cd84aa918"
}