Gitstr: Send and receive Git patches over Nostr • Hacker News Board

Re: Gitstr: Send and receive Git patches over Nostr

#61

Post by DANmode » Thu, Feb 01, 2024, 10:27 AM UTC

sureglymop wrote: post #58

DANmode wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who doesn't have a homepage, that wants one? It can be a Twitter bio, a (gulp) keybase page, or a personally hosted page.

Okay. Well, then you have to trust Twitter or Keybase, centralized authorities. And your profiles there can be taken down also. And if you have a homepage, why do you need Nostr at all? You can just sign content and publish it on your website then, no? I'm starting to think that the main thing with Nostr is convenience. Should you run into an issue with any relay(s) you simply change to different relays without much…

I trust any public service like that only as far and as long as needed - as long as they're serving how to find and properly contact me unscathed, (meaning I haven't made it politically or financially uninteresting for them to serve it), what more is needed?

Check archive.org or against the secondary page I have set up on MostPopularNetwork#2, if security-minded.

Re: Gitstr: Send and receive Git patches over Nostr

#62

Post by mitchus » Thu, Feb 01, 2024, 1:19 PM UTC

klabb3 wrote: post #60

mitchus wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what ways is the architecture similar? As far as I can tell, the only similarity to Bitcoin is that it is a "permissionless" protocol. Any relay can participate in Nostr, just like any node can participate in Bitcoin.

They’re both decentralized. Actors are identified by public keys. Messages are signed and processed by other nodes. The only high level differences are (1) Nostr does not have a persistence layer (much less one with global consensus) and (2) applications live “outside” the system whereas in the crypto world they’re either hard coded (say bitcoin) or through smart contracts that live “on-chain”, ie as part of the syst…

Good points, they are more similar than I had perceived. The fundamental objective in Bitcoin is the decentralized construction of an immutable ledger (through consensus attained by proof-of-work). It basically is a persistence layer. Whereas the fundamental objective in Nostr is to prevent central censoring of messages, so it's more akin to a communication protocol. However, censorship resistance is also a property of Bitcoin.

Re: Gitstr: Send and receive Git patches over Nostr

#63

Post by noman-land » Sat, Feb 10, 2024, 4:00 AM UTC

account42 wrote: post #52

noman-land wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decentralization/federation is not about "potential user base". It's about diffusion of control. People need to learn to fish because the SaaS model is a precarious foundation to build a culture on. We are having this conversation in a more mainstream way now because more people found out how precarious their online cultural foundations are. Your Facebooks and Reddits and Twitters will get ruined by changes of owners…

> The point is to either host your own instance, or use the instance of someone you trust and/or whose moderation policy you align with. This should be the goal but will never happen with an activity-pub-based fediverse. It just doesn't scale to everyone or even every small group having their own instances because. Current fediverse software is also too complicated and too resource hungry for even most technically in…

It's a step in the right direction towards diffusion of control. The corporate, SaaS alternatives are untenable. Full stop.