keychat on Nostr: nostr:note1j9umyh06g79t54hzkhpwqz4mrjpxehpa0pf0r8ywt4y3m3dcsvms6tve25

quoting note1j9u…ve25

NIP-4 vs NIP-17 vs Signal Protocol vs MLS Protocol

Microblog DMs and standalone chat apps represent different scenarios and application types.

Microblog DMs prioritize multi-device synchronization over enhanced security, while standalone chat apps favor better security over multi-device synchronization.

NIP-4 and NIP-17 are suited for microblog DMs, while the Signal and MLS protocols are ideal for standalone chat app.

NIP-4 and NIP-17:

These protocols are suited for microblog DMs due to their efficient multi-device synchronization, as the encryption key and receiving address remain unchanged. Importing an nsec key allows users to receive and decrypt DM messages, which is ideal for microblog DMs.

However, this same feature becomes a disadvantage for standalone chat apps because it compromises forward secrecy and backward secrecy, and exposes the recipient's identity.

Signal Protocol and MLS Protocol:

These protocols update the encryption key with each message, and the receiving address can also be updated. This feature is best suited for standalone chat apps due to its robust security features.

However, this advantage turns into a disadvantage for microblog DMs due to poor multi-device synchronization capabilities. Simply importing an nsec key is not sufficient to receive and decrypt messages in such scenarios.

NIP-4 vs NIP-17:

Both NIP-4 and NIP-17 do not conceal the recipient’s identity. However, NIP-17 conceals the sender's identity, unlike NIP-4.

Signal Protocol vs MLS Protocol:

The Signal Protocol is best suited for one-on-one chats and small group chats.

The MLS Protocol is ideally suited for large-scale group chats.