141–150 of 156 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Section 230 doesn't apply to CSAM, since SESTA/FOSTA
If your software encrypts user data with a user owned key that you never touch, i.e. everything is encrypted at rest, can you still be liable if it's later proven to be CSAM?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wrong with CBC? I think the bigger problem is the symmetric keys are not using a key derivation function and are therefore not uniformly random: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/issues/72
> What's wrong with CBC? It’s not tamper proof, ie signed, unlike GCM > Some modern modes of operation combine confidentiality and authenticity in an efficient way, and are known as authenticated encryption modes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_cipher_mode_of_operati... I’d also add: CBC requires padding and GCM does not. Minor convenience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nostr is a protocol. Are there moderation functionalities in RSS, SMTP or HTTP? Do matrix and XMPP protocols have some central authority overseeing what server a talks to server b? It’s up to the relays implement their own moderation features and clients filter what they don’t want to see.
I don't think these protocols are quite comparable to a Twitter-like "town square" model, so they don't have the same problems. But where they overlap, they do some "censorship": SMTP will delete spam, XMPP servers will kick out spammers and harassers. The problem with Twitter is that unlike RSS, it shows content from people you did not subscribe to (e.g. you get replies, you see strangers' replies to your friend's p…
Can you point to the part on the SMTP RFC that specifies the spam deletion behaviour?
> XMPP servers will kick out spammers and harassers
Nothing prevents nostr servers from kicking out based on account or IP address or message content
> The problem with Twitter is that unlike RSS, it shows content from people you did not subscribe to.
This is not Twitter, any client can decide which content to show. And there are clients that do not show any content from people you don't explicitly follow.
I'm working on software (member.cash) that bridges multiple decentralized social networks together and recently added support for Nostr. Compared to the others, Nostr is optimized for innovation - it is easy to build new features on top and we'll see a lot of growth and evolution because of that. I really like that about it. The problems I see with it right now are 1. Timestamps are easily forgeable 2. Difficult to c…
As far as I understand, a blockchain is only needed to achieve consensus on the network state. Why does social media require this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People who are de-platformed are almost always people who others WANT to hear. A tiny minority. The majority listens to public health (in the case of Covid) and doesn’t want to read conspiracy theories or research analysis by someone unqualified.
This is obviously false. Some people will eventually have to learn to cope with the fact that Trump won an election, which means that their received wisdom is not a consensual truth. edit: Additionally, the reasoning is fallacious - all people are minorities in many ways, so a few dozen tiny minorities can add up to an entire population. You may not disagree with the government about covid (although the government ha…
Scientists work for the government. If something is wrong we should fight to fix it. But almost all of the scientists outside of government agree with the scientists that work for the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What's wrong with CBC? It’s not tamper proof, ie signed, unlike GCM > Some modern modes of operation combine confidentiality and authenticity in an efficient way, and are known as authenticated encryption modes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_cipher_mode_of_operati... I’d also add: CBC requires padding and GCM does not. Minor convenience.
Nostr messages are all signed though. Why would you want two signatures on a message. And if two signatures are better than one, why not 3 signatures?
And GCM does not ‘add’ a signature per se.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nostr messages are all signed though. Why would you want two signatures on a message. And if two signatures are better than one, why not 3 signatures?
Discussion was about cipher block modes. And GCM does not ‘add’ a signature per se.
> And GCM does not ‘add’ a signature per se.
Your own comment to which I replied said "It’s not tamper proof, ie signed, unlike GCM". Wouldn't most people consider something "signed" as having a signature?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somethings a blockchain gives you - timestamp + cost per transaction + completeness. Not required, but Nostr has to find an alternative solution to all these issues.
Hmm yea ok. What do you mean by completeness? Timestamping seems like the most difficult of those to solve
Verifying completeness requires a blockchain of one type or another, where new transactions/messages reference a hash of past transactions/messages in some way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I understand, a blockchain is only needed to achieve consensus on the network state. Why does social media require this?
Nostr doesn’t use a blockchain