Warn against using 1111 to reply to kind 1

[staab]

No description provided.

[mikedilger]

I'm (obviously?) confused about NIP-22. The original NIP-22 PR has a lot of discussion about separating root posts from replies. At one point I thought I understood it wasn't about that, but @vitorpamplona and @arthurfranca 's replies went straight back to the concept of separating roots from replies. Then there were hundreds of more comments that I honestly didn't bother to follow given I already wasn't following what the intent was.

However, all I really need to know is when I should use kind 1111 as opposed to kind 1.

And if we are ever planning to relegate kind-1 to root posts only.

[staab]

NIP 22 is a better design. Maybe someday we could migrate, but it's very backwards-incompatible, as you've noted, mostly for kind 1 replies but also for kind 30023 replies to some extent. If we do migrate, we'll have to support both kinds of reply anyway, which only increases complexity.

[vitorpamplona]

The transition should be similar to NIP-44:

1. Everybody renders kind 1111 as replies to kind 1.
2. Everybody switches to kind 1111 when they are creating replies to kind 1
3. Everybody deprecates kind 1 replies.