Should have made them backwards compatible imo. Didn’t need to hardfork like this. Could have just referenced urls in tags.
Login to reply
Replies (7)
These seems like strongarming other clients to implement some spec they may not want to implement. Now we have broken images from a major nostr client. Are you implementing images this way #[5] ?
Changing to urls soon. I just haven't switched to the non #[] tagging yet. But seriously, it's not that hard. And it's the right way of doing this.
The idea is to not stop at images. PDFs, music, APKs, etc. Everything will be hashed.
Agree, we need backwards compatibility until consensus is reached. Breaking functionality to force a change is not cool.
This entire NIP-94 discussion is worth a read if you missed it.
#[0]
Thanks for highlighting it. Will read through it
Developing nostr so fast with so many different clients gaining traction, I'm surprised things like this haven't been more common. Challenging forks are bound to happen, nostr has no consensus mechanism whatsoever.