NIP-11: Pay to relay clarification

[kehiy]

For details check:

• Changes on NIP-11 #1473

[staab]

This PR does too many things, between changing formats and updating actual NIP semantics. Can you split them up? BTW, I don't think expanding the json to one line per character is helpful for readability.

[kehiy]

@staab Style changed removed, I'll move them to another PR. Also, the reason for expanding this JSON (pay-to-relay document example) is to add comments and make it clearer to understand.

[staab]

This looks good to me, but we'll want someone who has implemented this to confirm that it's all accurate. Maybe nostr.wine?

[kehiy]

Here is wines document:

{
  "contact": "[email protected]",
  "description": "A paid nostr relay for wine enthusiasts and everyone else.",
  "fees": {
    "admission": [
      {
        "amount": 18888000,
        "unit": "msats"
      }
    ]
  },
  "icon": "https://i.nostr.build/567z.jpg",
  "limitation": {
    "auth_required": false,
    "created_at_lower_limit": 94608000,
    "created_at_upper_limit": 300,
    "max_event_tags": 4000,
    "max_limit": 1000,
    "max_message_length": 524288,
    "max_subid_length": 71,
    "max_subscriptions": 50,
    "min_pow_difficulty": 0,
    "payment_required": true,
    "restricted_writes": true
  },
  "name": "nostr.wine",
  "payments_url": "https://nostr.wine/invoices",
  "pubkey": "4918eb332a41b71ba9a74b1dc64276cfff592e55107b93baae38af3520e55975",
  "software": "https://nostr.wine",
  "supported_nips": [
    1,
    2,
    4,
    9,
    11,
    40,
    42,
    50,
    94
  ],
  "version": "0.3.2"
}

They are only providing admission rule, but based on their website I can see they have different models to do that.

But the admission is following these changes. or better to say it won't break any existing NIP-11 implementation.

[kehiy]

@staab @fiatjaf can you review the last changes?

[staab]

Looks ok to me, but I don't trust myself to review this one correctly, it's an area of nostr I just haven't paid any attention to yet.

[kehiy]

@staab Cool, thanks. I think that's important to clarify this part. I think we can ask other friends to check this and make the final decision.

[kehiy]

Can someone help review this and make the final decision?

[vitorpamplona]

Can someone help review this and make the final decision?

Things are not merged until 2+ implementers have this change in production. That's your actual review. "Reviewers" here just try to see if things are aligned between NIPs. The rest is up to implementers. If this is being actually used, it will be merged.

As a client that consumes NIP-11, I don't think any of these new items are actionable to me. It's not that I can show these to the user and they are going to pay without any extra sales pitch to them.

[staab]

What's new here? Seems like just clarification of what nip 11 already has.

[kehiy]

@staab Yes, there is nothing new. just adding the details of the existing NIP-11. which is required for someone to implement it properly. we need to clarify what are these fields and what they can contain as value.

@vitorpamplona FYI.

[vitorpamplona]

Let's make sure we have people actually using these fields. Otherwise, we should go in the opposite route and delete them entirely from the spec.

[kehiy]

@vitorpamplona OK, I can see wine and nsotr land are using them at the moment. Also I have plan to use it on my own implementation. So, let't wait to see how it goes.