summary comparison of Radicle and nip34: Radicle characteristics: * permissionless account creation. all messages signed with ed5519 key pair * custom p2p gossip protocol similar to lightning to identify repository peers and peer state * git protocol use for syncing with peers * seed nodes (essentially relays) used to addresses reliability issues of p2p * issues, patches and comments stored in git objects benefits over nip34: * p2p (works without seed nodes) * v1 nearly complete, with IDE plugins and web ui * more momentum, contributors and interest issues: * complex, making it potentially difficult to integrate and impractical for other implementations * centralised development team funded via a Etherium DAO utility token * learning curve - different mental model required than GitHub PRs which may be an adoption barrier * custom protocol, not part of an ecosystem * big maintenance burden * does not benefit from developments in ecosystem * no web of trust for spam prevention mechanisms nip34 benefits over Radicle: * simple * multiple implementations * part of ecosystem (nostr): * maintained protocols, libraries and tools for issues like transport, spam prevention, etc * account reuse across use cases * notifications accessible from other social clients * doesn't rely on infrastructure bespoke to nip34 protocol * can be adopted alongside GitHub repositories nip34 issues: * no momentum or usage * tooling is immature and with bare bones feature

Not in production but I have reviewed it. Here are my thoughts:

I like radicle and I had some discussions with them about this. Unfortunately they use a different cryptographic curve which means you can't have a key which is provably a radicle key and a nostr key. Ultimately, I think nostr is the better solution because it has its own ecosystem and doesn't try to create one from scratch.