Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

NIP-07: add NIP-44 calls #1063

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 21, 2024
Merged

Conversation

alexgleason
Copy link
Member

@alexgleason alexgleason commented Feb 20, 2024

Very simpler alternative to #940

It does the same thing as NIP-04 but with the better encryption.

@staab
Copy link
Member

staab commented Feb 20, 2024

We've come full circle 😂

@monlovesmango
Copy link
Member

monlovesmango commented Feb 20, 2024

I won't stand in the way of this if this is what most want. I still do think the batched calls are useful for improved UX and would be nice to align with NIP46 (especially bc I think NIP46 is the future and NIP07 will become increasingly obsolete, and having them be similar increases support for both).

@alexgleason I am curious what your opinion is on exposing getConversationKey?

@vitorpamplona
Copy link
Collaborator

We are debating too many hypotheticals.

Does anybody have a Client implementation that calls NIP-44 methods with arrays? Is there a Signer that takes in and displays the array to the user for approval? If not, then let's merge this.

If the need for arrays comes up, I am sure we can just add new methods to deal with that need.

@staab
Copy link
Member

staab commented Feb 20, 2024

Well, there is this: https://github.com/fiatjaf/nos2x/pull/47/files, but I don't think it's deployed yet. I also used the same approach with alby. But neither is released, I'm just waiting for this discussion to resolve. So yeah, let's just go back to NIP 04 and add bulk options if we need them.

@vitorpamplona vitorpamplona self-requested a review February 20, 2024 18:50
@staab
Copy link
Member

staab commented Feb 20, 2024

Let's wait to see what @fiatjaf has to say, but I'm happy to keep this simple. I'll update my signer PRs

@fiatjaf
Copy link
Member

fiatjaf commented Feb 20, 2024

What is the argument against having an optional getConversationKey() method? I never read that. No one likes that anymore?

@vitorpamplona
Copy link
Collaborator

The best argument for not needing getConversationKey in this PR is that no client needs it yet. :)

@staab
Copy link
Member

staab commented Feb 20, 2024

What is the argument against having an optional getConversationKey() method? I never read that. No one likes that anymore?

You log into evil client. It fetches private messages, and asks you for conversation keys for each. As part of that giant wall of alby requests, it also asks for every conversation key for every likely/possible contact, and (if using time-based salt) across every epoch from now until 10 years in the future. Then it stores them on a server. Now it has access to all your messages in perpetuity with any specified counter party, and you have no idea.

@fiatjaf
Copy link
Member

fiatjaf commented Feb 20, 2024

Fine.

@staab
Copy link
Member

staab commented Feb 20, 2024

Updated my PRs to nos2x and alby.

@alexgleason
Copy link
Member Author

Looks like fiatjaf/nos2x#57 is merged. #983 is merged. Everyone is pretty much in agreement at this point. This should be ready to merge.

@vitorpamplona vitorpamplona merged commit cbee109 into nostr-protocol:master Feb 21, 2024
@erskingardner
Copy link
Contributor

CleanShot 2024-02-22 at 08 26 59

That changeset... a thing of beauty.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants