[dead]
Nostr is an inclusive communication commons
31–40 of 198 posts
Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons
#32For me, the great idea behind Nostr is that identity is a self-generated key pair, which can then be used wherever you want (and the economic model, with much potentials). In terms of decentralisation, however, I'm not convinced; I find the model of the late ZeroNet, the KAD network and others, essentially DHT, far superior, because it allows content to stay alive as long as there's interest in it, and every member of the network donates a certain amount of storage and bandwidth (adjustable at will) without being able to choose which specific scrap of content to host.
In the Nostr model, in the end, even if everyone set up (as I do) a personal relay to hold their own posts and a personal Blossom server (video/images), decentralisation would still be hit-and-miss. Everyone would either have to import everything or do a painstaking job of choosing what to import just to have it available, and there's no decent discoverability, WoT is not much a thing for such purpose.
The biggest immediate problem, however, is that there isn't a single, easily hostable piece of software that includes everything Nostr is ready to do now:
- relay, Blossom server (here we have Haven, and MOAR)
- chat (not just in the relay, but as a UI too)
- short posts like Twitter/X
- long posts filterable by topic (currently only tags) to recreate the experience of Usenet/Forums/Reddit
- very long, blog-style posts
- VoIP with a Coturn server or similar
We have all of this in separate clients and relays, often semi-abandoned, sketched out and never finished, and we're missing a unified UI, just as our communication needs are unified (think of Emacs/Gnus with the idea of bringing together every text message, email, news, feeds, even Reddit and HN). All of this should be sovereign, meaning, for example, hostable on one's own relay as a single Go, Rust, or Python package, proxyable via NGINX, and potentially reachable via Tor or I2P for those behind a NAT. It's a massive job, but the reality is that everything is already there, it just needs putting together.
Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> decentralization of power
Insightful! We struggle with containing true decentralised protocols like BGP, Bittorrent, and Bitcoin.
Email, RSS, and also Nostr are too simple. The core protocol does not contain any measures against spam, abuse and fraud. No accountability. Just launch a million fake identities and spam these network. Your Internet address got blocked? Try the a16z-funded startup that uses a USA-based phone farm. Decentralised accountability is unsolved.
My university lab has focused on decentralisation for decades, its hard. We need a decentralised trust framework (e.g. our TrustChain protocol), decentralised spam prevention (StarveSpam) and decentralised democracy (our TwoStepDemocracy protocol). Getting this deployed and do iterative improvements needs more resources then universities have. Another coordination problem for The Common Good.
Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons
#34I tried very hard to develop for Nostr with the idea it was an inclusive communication commons. Turns out it was a Lightning Network payments promotion project. All of its users (aside from its creator) were very much more interested in Lightning than in Nostr. Dismal experience, still bitter about the effort I wasted on it.
Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons
#35for those simply looking to try nostr for the first time, https://iris.to is a great way to get started.
Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like a RSS feed client or a podcast client that connects to multiple feeds to update your timeline.
> decentralization of power Insightful! We struggle with containing true decentralised protocols like BGP, Bittorrent, and Bitcoin. Email, RSS, and also Nostr are too simple. The core protocol does not contain any measures against spam, abuse and fraud. No accountability. Just launch a million fake identities and spam these network. Your Internet address got blocked? Try the a16z-funded startup that uses a USA-based…
What's wrong with RSS?
Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons
#37Nostr 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.
Email requires a message to reach a specific, limited set of participants. Nostr is a public forum, which means an unbounded number of participants who can engage.
Ordering a conversation between an unbounded set across independent nodes leads to misordered interactions not possible if you just centralize. It seems like a small issue, but at scale quality really suffers when some universal, fine-resolution ordering can't be agreed upon.
You can devise many clever schemes to try to avoid centralization and achieve coherency, but if one service is more up to date with more info, it is preferable and offers a more coherent public conversation. Network effects still dominate despite the protocol.
All that said, if I wasn't very aligned with the spirit, I wouldn't care so much to think about it. I'm also aligned with the spirit of Bitcoin but the culture present in both doesn't help it. The fact that Nostr is Bitcoin aligned, meaning it rejects the technical options of protocols taking more risks, hurts it.
The way it handles public keys and identities is very simple and good and to me is very obviously reflective of a good future state. But it's not unique to Nostr.
Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 implementa…
It would be more analog to HTTP not specing out how CDNs should work, or Usenet not specing out how DejaNews is going to work. It's infrastructure stuff neither the client nor the simple server has to care about.
The Nostr spec covers what matters, cryptographic identities and unique message ids, that make dumb relays that duplicating messages from elsewhere possible (an area where HTTP or Activity Pub fail at).
Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons
#39The 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…
> sticky defaults... makes client authors the kingmakers.
Isn't this true of any protocol (to a greater or lesser degree)?
Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I doubt widespread adoption was slowed down with mainstream news about BitTorrent, or what are you talking about more specifically ?
Others peer to peer sharing platforms got much more popular despite mainstream news about them like LimeWire and eMule