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

NIP71 Restricted Events #1083

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

monlovesmango
Copy link
Member

NIP to create restricted events which can only be requested by authenticated users. Can be used to limit metadata leakage or grant access to paid content.

references to NIP-43 are for pr #1082 (https://github.com/monlovesmango/nips/blob/NIP43-auth-delegation/43.md)

nice version: https://github.com/monlovesmango/nips/blob/NIP71-restricted-events-by-tag/71.md

most seemed to like the tag based identification of restricted events so that what I did, but also created a range based version: https://github.com/monlovesmango/nips/blob/NIP71-restricted-events-by-range/71.md

@fiatjaf
Copy link
Member

fiatjaf commented Feb 25, 2024

How is this better than #1030?

@arthurfranca
Copy link
Contributor

How is this better than #1030?

Not better nor worse, they have different uses.
#1030 prevents rebroadcasts from people that aren't the event author; this one doesn't.
This one prevents people that aren't the author or p-tagged from downloading the event; #1030 doesn't.

@arthurfranca
Copy link
Contributor

I'm ok with this solution to event access control. Both this one and #1049 achieve the same goal of adding event access control in a way that enables relays to know if user (and which user) should authenticate by simply inspecting the request filter.

Main difference is this one uses a new filter field while #1049 a new kind range.

@monlovesmango
Copy link
Member Author

How is this better than #1030?

its not better, its just supposed to be complementary.

@arthurfranca arthurfranca mentioned this pull request Apr 19, 2024
6 tasks
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.

3 participants