While NIP-39 is not popularly implemented, your specification is not even implemented so I don’t get your point.
If you intend to take any criticism that suggested changes and nothing else and twist it into your own view of “everyone that runs a paid NIP-05 service hates my proposal”, then you just want a yes-man for your proposal.
Go spend your time building services that provide value to users like nostr.land, not baseless attacks on others.
Login to reply
Replies (1)
This is what I am trying to do. I want to build services and have put extensive time into design and hardware build out. Much of the implementation is planned and waiting for my time, which is scarce.
My point is, the technical implementation of this change is minimal and optional for most existing systems. It is not a risk.
I am not really trying to start a war, I was trying to get a point across that there is a viable and desired use case here that many potential contributors to the ecosystem see value in. The pushback seems very excessive considering the request and the motives of the opposition to it are more questionable than the motives of those requesting it, considering it enables more capabilities for all providers in a way that would be mainly non-intrusive. It does not have to be json, it could be an array in any preferred method of storage.
I just do not see the wisdom in preventing this from becoming available for use. It has upsides for nostr.