Default avatar
Valentino Giudice aspie96@Nostr-Check.com 3 months ago
It is easily implementable, but not through follow lists. Following someone signals interest. You may very well be willing to verify an account even if it's not interesting (as long as it's a human and not a spammer). In addition, follow lists are stored whole in one event. This is fine, because you shouldn't follow too many people. But it is absolutely reasonable for a verifier to verify several thousands of people, even automatically (through some kind of CAPTCHA, or whatever other form of verification). So I think it requires a somewhat different implementation, but it would be doable. I also don't think hiding all unverified replies would be a good idea, but it can be used as one element for filtering. Clients could show a verification checkmark (the one they show for NIP-05 identities, while they really shouldn't, because that one is not about verification) and maybe prioritize those replies.
↑ Parent

Replies (1)

inkan's avatar
inkan dv@www.inkan.cc 3 months ago
A pubkey could of course nonetheless use follow lists to signal not that the followed key is interesting, but that it is human and not a spammer. It's ultimately a matter of intent and convention. But yeah, using follow lists this way might be confusing, and have technical limitations. We currently have basically only two pre-defined modes of expressing approval or disapproval of a pubkey, through public following and public muting. Expanding this to include other information - e.g. "is human" or "is not a spammer" - seems useful, although one wonders how far the range of pre-sets should go (one could have verifiers for "is safe-for-work", "is appropriate for children" etc.).
↑