Nostr is very useful when using it as underlying network for trystero
Seems to be surviving just fine bases on the comment feeds I see utilizing it in Podcast 2.0 apps. Sorry, nobody cares about your police, we're just here for the tech
Nostr is an inclusive communication commons
21–30 of 198 posts
Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
The website mentions the network is pro-censorship: > Pro-censorship: The protocol is ownerless, relays are not > Nostr doesn't subscribe to political ideals of "free speech" — it simply recognizes that different people have different morals and preferences and each server, being privately owned, can follow their own criteria for rejecting content as they please and users are free to choose what to read and from wher…
From what I've gathered it's pro-censorship however since the user is entirely mobile and can change relays at will without friction that the power still remains with the user... the relay doesn't have much power in anything they can't keep their users from finding you, and they can't keep you from publishing elsewhere they can only choose to not accept your posts. When I setup my account I list 3-4 relays that will…
Which is the point of free speech, right?
You should have the ability to say whatever you want, people just don't have to listen to you or be around you.
Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons
#23Nah it’s DOA because it was adopted by the alt right.
Nostr is a protocol, not a service. That's like saying HTML was adopted by the alt right.
Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons
#24Nah it’s DOA because it was adopted by the alt right.
Nostr is a protocol, not a service. That's like saying HTML was adopted by the alt right.
Adoption by too narrow an audience can totally poison a protocol for the rest of us.
Bit torrent is a superior way to move data around (as compared with http downloads). But its early associations appear to have forever tainted it against widespread adoption.
Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons
#25Nostr breaks down along the longstanding ambiguity around what 'decentralization' means. In the literal sense, centralization leads to economies of scale and the alleviation of coordination issues. Those coordination issues are what make physically decentralized networks so complicated, inefficient and fractured. These networks usually just find ways to centralize despite. People really want decentralization of power…
What "awkward" coordination? Clients fetch updates from whatever servers they follow.
Same thing with email that you've been using for decades, doesn't get simpler than that.
Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons
#26Nostr is cute but I feel it runs into xkcd 191. To paraphrase: > If you Used Nostr your communication would be completely uncensored and decentralized. > Yeah, but it would all be with the kind of people who use Nostr. As of now it’s filled with BTC-maxis / crypto bros that mainly talk about how great Nostr and Bitcoin are … and not much else. I suppose there’s plenty of tasteless AI slop and gross adult scams if tha…
There is a feature called "follow" so just follow the people with topics you are interested, same as any network unless you prefer tiktok-style algorithms that choose everything for you.
Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons
#27Nah it’s DOA because it was adopted by the alt right.
Yeah, zero moderation and you can't talk to the manager.
Truly awful to have decentralized freedom.
Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons
#28Nostr breaks down along the longstanding ambiguity around what 'decentralization' means. In the literal sense, centralization leads to economies of scale and the alleviation of coordination issues. Those coordination issues are what make physically decentralized networks so complicated, inefficient and fractured. These networks usually just find ways to centralize despite. People really want decentralization of power…
What "awkward" coordination? Clients fetch updates from whatever servers they follow. Same thing with email that you've been using for decades, doesn't get simpler than that.
Just like a RSS feed client or a podcast client that connects to multiple feeds to update your timeline.
Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons
#29The thing with Nostr is that the protocol spec expressly forbids relays from forwarding messages to each other. What this means is that users trying to reach each other need to shotgun messages to many relays, or congregate around specific ones. User profile data will list the relays they listen on, but this suffers from the problem of sticky defaults and makes client authors the kingmakers. There's lots of centraliz…
it doesn't explicitly forbdit it. It just doesn't spec it out, because it doesn't need it for the protocol to work. There are already many relays and clients that do just this.
I think GP's point (which I agree with) is that the functionality is almost essential. When it's not part of the spec, then you end up with differing off-spec implementations, and again, centralization risk.
This would be like the HTTP protocol not defining `POST`, and leaving it up to servers and clients to implement it based on however it feels like.
I really like the ideals behind Nostr, but I think its implementation and execution could be better.
Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons
#30The thing with Nostr is that the protocol spec expressly forbids relays from forwarding messages to each other. What this means is that users trying to reach each other need to shotgun messages to many relays, or congregate around specific ones. User profile data will list the relays they listen on, but this suffers from the problem of sticky defaults and makes client authors the kingmakers. There's lots of centraliz…
> protocol spec expressly forbids relays from forwarding messages to each other.
That statement is false and if you disagree: please provide a source.
There is no such restriction on the NIP (protocol guidelines). I have been writing NOSTR software since years and there was NEVER such restriction in place. In fact, wouldn't even make sense because some relays (e.g. Primal) are super-aggregators for smaller relays.
> users trying to reach each other need to shotgun messages to many relays
This is a false statement. NIP 65 provides a list of which servers the users declares to be using. This way readers for that user know at which door (server) to knock and ask for updates.