Live data from Hacker News

Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

nostr.org

131–140 of 198 posts

Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

#131
post #6

Nostr 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…

> People really want decentralization of power—let's just replace the word with a better word: accountability. One should be able to enjoy economies of scale (centralized infrastructure)

Let's not. Decentralization of power is not the same thing as accountability. They are alternatives that can achieve some of the same goals, but in significantly different ways.

My working definition is that a system is decentralized to the extent that a person cannot be banned from it.

I assure myself of a bed to sleep in in a decentralized way: there is a bed in my bedroom, in my house, which I lock with a key, so that nobody can sleep in my bed without my permission (or my wife's). Or I can go to a hotel, if I can find one that is willing to accommodate me, or to a friend's house. I am not accountable to anyone for my bed. If my bed has boxes of books on it and cannot be slept in, nobody will hold me to account. Not even my wife; she has her own bed. It is impossible to ban me from the Bed System, other than by arresting me; even if you took the bed out of my house, I could go over to my friend's house and sleep there, or I could get a new bed from a store, or from someone who's selling theirs.

This is somewhat inefficient. For example, tonight my wife is visiting her parents, so nobody will be using her bed. This kind of thing results in the community in aggregate needing more beds than people.

If I were staying in a homeless shelter, I would instead rely on accountability. If I arrived at the shelter and there was no bed available to me, I would complain to the staff. I would attempt to complain to the manager. I might at some point write a letter to their funding agencies. Depending on factors like my social status, I might or might not obtain some kind of alternative accommodation, and homeless shelters that systematically failed to provide accommodations to their clients might be shut down, or they might not.

If the homeless-shelter system in an area is completely centralized, accountability is all I'd have, and banning me from that system could be done at the stroke of a pen. But if there's some degree of decentralization, I might hoof it to another shelter, and perhaps find accommodation. Otherwise, I'm stuck either looking for a place to sleep on the sidewalk where nobody will steal my shoes, or maybe trying to find a bus ride long enough to permit me to nap in a seat for an hour or so, because I am significantly vulnerable to the centralized power of the homeless-shelter staff.

Despite its efficiency, this is considerably worse than my current actual situation, in which I really don't have to worry very much about having a bed to sleep in tonight, considerably lowering my stress level.

So accountability is very different in practice from decentralization of power. And that is why we prefer the Bed System, and most other necessities of daily life, to be decentralized.

In the case of Nostr, the idea is for relays to enjoy economies of scale without enjoying centralized power, in particular because they don't coordinate. There's always some tension there; if one neighborhood store stops carrying Sugar-Free Speed Energy Drink, you can go to another one, but there's no guarantee they carry it either. So the power enjoyed by the shopkeeper is definitely nonzero, even in ordinary commercial transactions (not to mention if they accuse you of shoplifting, which other shopkeepers might notice).

It's still much less power than that enjoyed by a big-box supermarket in a neighborhood with no neighborhood stores, and often economies of scale tend to drive neighborhood stores out of business when a big-box store moves in.

As an alternative to trying to decentralize your food retail system in neighborhood stores, you could try to centralize it and make it accountable, with a food co-op. If the co-op members don't like the food buying decisions of the staff, they can vote in a new board of directors that will fire the management, if necessary, in order to ensure better food buying decisions.

But this is very different from the decentralization of a diversity of neighborhood stores. Among other things, the food co-op can ban someone.

Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

#132
post #109

I 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.

You can use a technology without agreeing with the views of other users of the technology. You don't have to follow those people.

These things have more effects than you think. IPFS just lost all funding because the NFT craze is over and they didn't find any alternative grift. That means the public gateways and general knowledge of the project will fade away and there won't be maintenance on the software.

Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

#133
post #115
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crypto-people? As in that that other part of Homo Sapiens that is about to split off, or what? (Yes sarcasm) What are you even talking about? Please do some research before coming with such a response. Anything that is crypto-adjacent or sometimes even "not actively opposing" cryptocurrencies is heavily disapproved of here. I get some of it, and agree with much of it, but it always goes too far. Always leads to concl…

It’s been 18 years and there are still no useful blockchain projects that go beyond trading and speculation. It hasn’t even produced a compelling currency, <2% of households use it for goods and services. I have no idea how or why anyone is still hanging on.

Buying drugs.

And even when it's not drugs, I sometimes use it to pay for things online because Visa randomly doesn't want me to use my Visa card for unknown reasons.

Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

#134
post #110
post #6

Nostr 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…

> network effects favor the largest No. You can write a client that does not use popular relays and it will work fine.

Can you elaborate on this? What can you do with this client, and how does it find the relays to use to get notified of new notes?

I don't know very much about Nostr, so I don't know the answers to these questions, or even if they are the right questions to ask.

Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

#135
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s been 18 years and there are still no useful blockchain projects that go beyond trading and speculation. It hasn’t even produced a compelling currency, <2% of households use it for goods and services. I have no idea how or why anyone is still hanging on.

> It hasn’t even produced a compelling currency It has produced Monero which absolutely is that currency. Now if only we could get people to actually use it.

You don't want people to actually use it because like all cryptocurrency it's got quite limited maximum throughput. The problem is worse than usual with Monero - because it's so secure, no data can ever be proven to be unused, so no data can ever be removed from the blockchain.

Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

#136
post #48

I 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.

NOSTR is a protocol so there's no entity for you to be bitter with... You can be annoyed at the people who were on there, but that's a different subject. There's probably a better analogy than this, but what you're describing would be like playing soccer and being annoyed that your teammates are furries. Go find another team to play with.

Protocols are always developed by entities. Suppose the protocol changes - who decided that?

About the only ownerless protocol is Bitcoin (not Ethereum, Monero or any other one) and it still has an entity with soft power over it.

Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

#137
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh look, an anti-crypto guy that advocates for L402 support!!: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48281948 Beeeep, wrong. Next question.

If you have any other proposal for true micropayments (as in fractions of cents of value that flow freely) please, indulge me. I for one would prefer to give value via lightning over forcing my eyeballs on ads everywhere I look. Same goes for the agents I deploy, I'd like to have methods of returning value for whatever value they extract (in the form of information).

My proposal is that you don't.

Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

#138
post #68
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>full of male tech nerds with a STEM background and a taste in SciFi/Fantasy culture. Anything like this in 2026?

You're on hacker news.

But it's a website for VC funds and people hoping to get rich.

Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

#139
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

> Nostr is a public forum, which means an unbounded number of participants who can engage. Thats why you layer encryption on top of that to restrict the audience to whatever you intend. And yes, traitors in your audience can rebroadcast unencrypted versions of your encrypted one - that is the equivalence of a person reposting a private whatsapp chat on instagram.

The problem wasn't about private conversations being too public, it was about intentionally public conversations being too hard to coordinate.

Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Email spam is a solved problem. Normal people get approximately 0-5 spam messages per year or so.

Yes, we solved it by centralising and ceding our power, so that two companies can see when a lot of people get the exact same message, and delete it for them.
Post reply on HN