Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

nostr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 198 posts

Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

#181

Post by inigyou »

chuckadams wrote: post #171
duskwuff wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is FTP really worse HTTP? I don't think I'd even call it that. FTP had one purpose: it was an early protocol for remotely managing files. It never had any intent to support dynamically generated or otherwise "virtual" content (as supported by e.g. CGI scripts and mod_rewrite in Apache), and I don't think anyone has ever made a serious attempt to implement that. There's no practical use case for it. Even as a file m…

The strange way FTP manages connections goes back to FTP being older than TCP/IP itself, and thus using older circuit-switched networks. It wouldn't have been unusual for a server to dial up the receiving machine on-demand, which didn't have to be the machine running the command session. Before SMTP came around, email was commonly implemented on top of FTP.

FTP was written for an early version of TCP/IP (which wasn't called that). Maybe you're thinking of UUCP, which did often run over dial-up circuits and was used for email, but didn't require two connections.

Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

#182

Post by inigyou »

teekert wrote: post #153
inigyou wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My proposal is that you don't.

Imo any fair future economy should embrace decentralized 9ie without a company taking a cut Apple style) frictionless sharing of value. Either that or we must have strive for a fair post-scarcity economy (Star Trek like). The way things are going I'm even more skeptical about achieving that.

Have we not learned that there's nothing money can't corrupt? Friction is probably a good idea or the network will be overrun by some kind of micro-scam demanding $0.00001 every millisecond from every user.

You can still send money without integration, but you have to copy-paste an address into a separate bitcoin program and click a few buttons.

Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

#183

Post by inigyou »

chr15m wrote: post #175
inigyou wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IPFS did not lose all funding. Please check your facts. IPFS has largely failed to find adoption as a protocol because it was over engineered and did not give users what they want. People don't want decentralization. What they want is the downstream effects of decentralization like privacy, disaggregation of powerful entities, and permissionless participation. For a protocol to be adopted it needs to give individual…

People don't actually want any of those things either. People want to click on a button and see the dancing bunnies.

Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

#184

Post by t0bia_s »

lxgr wrote: post #124
lrvick wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you anonymously pay for a VPN or donate to whistleblowers or get cash from an ATM without having to identify yourself? What is your backup plan to pay bills when your bank account is frozen by identity theft (can take months to resolve)? Only those that believe privacy and sovereign control of wealth has no value, can assert cryptocurrency is useless.

> How would you anonymously pay for a VPN or donate to whistleblowers or get cash from an ATM without having to identify yourself? "Anonymously paying for VPN" seems a bit ironic given that almost all VPN users then immediately proceed to completely deanonymize themselves towards the VPN by accessing it from their (not anonymous) home Internet connection and/or to access sites that deanonymize them. Add to that the f…

What about inflation that eats your savings? Can your bank solve this?

Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

#185

Post by t0bia_s »

inigyou wrote: post #162
lxgr wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately, not all governments have completely normalized warrantless wiretaps yet. I think requiring a court order and retroactive notification of suspects whose privacy has been invaded is a good model. I'd rather have my money work in a way that allows that than in the current status quo, i.e. a complete lack of privacy for anything other than cash (which has different issues and doesn't work so well online).

What will you do when they break glass on every transaction and don't do that? Or when Lithuania breaks glass on every transaction and sends the data to the FBI, like what they did with Anom?

I would regulate value of currency. To be beneficial for few get more rich.

Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

#186

Post by exabyte »

LoganDark wrote: post #100
exabyte wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But furries are more likely to be skilled at the game :)

i imagine the ball would be deflated by the end ^^

Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

#187

Post by grumbel »

inigyou wrote: post #160
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is FTP really worse HTTP? If you try to enumerate directories over HTTP alarms start going off because you look like an attacker.

Yes, in every way except that servers and clients normally support upload while HTTP ones don't. This is the main reason to use it. But you should use SFTP instead. This is SSH's replacement for FTP. It's not the same as FTPS which is useless. We don't have to keep old protocols that offer nothing alive. Maybe a couple of clients and servers to demonstrate with, but it's a museum piece, not useful code. That's not an…

[dead]

Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

#188

Post by abc123abc123 »

inigyou wrote: post #140
abc123abc123 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not at all. I never had a google account and I know many people who do not have one, and no, they have no problems with spam either.

Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

#189

Post by chuckadams »

inigyou wrote: post #181
chuckadams wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The strange way FTP manages connections goes back to FTP being older than TCP/IP itself, and thus using older circuit-switched networks. It wouldn't have been unusual for a server to dial up the receiving machine on-demand, which didn't have to be the machine running the command session. Before SMTP came around, email was commonly implemented on top of FTP.

FTP was written for an early version of TCP/IP (which wasn't called that). Maybe you're thinking of UUCP, which did often run over dial-up circuits and was used for email, but didn't require two connections.

No, I was thinking of FTP, but I was probably off the mark anyway: I'd noticed that FTP was mentioned in the RFCs and surrounding discussions long before RFC 793, and that it seemed to be behaving like a point-to-point network, but it hadn't occurred to me that it might have just been using an ancestor of TCP/IP -- some variant of the "Host protocol" perhaps?

Hard to get the full context, it was before my time: my beard may be grey now, but I'm not that old.

Re: Nostr is an inclusive communication commons

#190

Post by thataccount »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #180
thataccount wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really don't understand what is going on in places like Latin America with Bitcoin do you? Let me enlighten you a little. People with a ton of Bitcoin go there to have fun, while trying to sell poor villages on the idea that Bitcoin will free them from poverty the rest of the world puts them in. The woman in question was in one of those villages, believing their idea that Bitcoin could free her and her village. T…

That sounds quite bad. But it also sounds like sending her to participate would have been even worse than ignoring her!

If they actually walked the walk, her going there would be a sign they were going to do what they were proposing. Them ignoring her was an indication they were full of it, hence why I left.
Post reply on HN