Live data from Hacker News

Nature's many attempts to evolve a Nostr

newsletter.squishy.computer

101–110 of 171 posts

Re: Nature's many attempts to evolve a Nostr

#101
It got me thinking:

- how well does such an ecosystem resist enshittification? Given some of the other comments, Nostr itself would not. However, is that true for every relay networks?

- does the Willow protocol have the same basic constraints? I know willow works with user-owned keys, but can it also organize as something similar to relays?

- local-first apps organized this way would be an interesting ecosystem

- how well would this work with keyhive? (Local first access control)

Re: Nature's many attempts to evolve a Nostr

#102

Reading the comments below make me feel like I should maybe be expected to already know what nostr is. But anyway, I don't and reading this article, it felt like it just suddenly cut off at the end. It explained all the traditional approaches, which are all able to help discoverability and shareability of data between servers, and then says "the solution is relays" and then describes something that doesn't seem to be…

Nostr is one of those thought-terminating cults, you know, identical to "blockchain solves this" or "AGI solves this".

And "Nostr can't be censored" is, of course, a statement identical to "Blockchain solves all consensus problems" and "AI can do anything better than a human."

Re: Nature's many attempts to evolve a Nostr

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except without the ability to give and receive real value via zaps, and at the risk of being censored, and losing your entire audience at the whim of the network operators Every large relay has the same problem

Please take a look at my other replies to other posts. Read about the outbox model, or Bitchat. The large relays are not required. They are a public service but not essential. There are plenty of community relays charging for access too, and the outbox model means you're not even depending on them. Nostr can and does successfully operate via even Bluetooth Mesh Networks. Search up Bitchat and see how it has been used…

if the solution to censorship is flooding the network posting the same message to multiple of their preferred relays in hopes that the recipient gets it, what happens if i get banned from all their preferred relays? i dont think i can message them directly so im effectively blocked

Re: Nature's many attempts to evolve a Nostr

#104
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Email is currently more decentralized than Nostr is in practice.

considering most people today only use 3 or 4 big email providers i can see the exact same happening for nostr, the p2p part seems more like a gimmick than a protocol requirement

It's actually advised to use 3/4 relays in your clients

Using NIP-65 (https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/65.md) you can broadcast a note to the network to mention your preferred relays.

Most clients fetch that note when you first sign in and make sure you connect to your preferred relays

Re: Nature's many attempts to evolve a Nostr

#105
post #24

Nostr will always be a fringe network. The normies do not want to manage their own keys.

Hopefully some day we will get state-managed PKI, and citizens will get used to handling their keys appropriately. It's crazy that some functionality on e.g. the IRS website requires me to verify my identity using a private company (ID.me).

european IDs already have a chip with your personal keys and you can use that to log into any state operated service

Re: Nature's many attempts to evolve a Nostr

#106
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been looking at that for quite some time, even met teams members developing the product. Sorry to say: both are fundamentally different technologies and philosophies. NOSTR "accounts" are meant to trivially generated and used outside the context of micro-blogging. That is the reason for being popular, the npub becomes a signature that validates texts and there is value in that. AT always feels like mastodon meet…

> US-centric political moderation on top. This is something you opt-in to. Two concepts, labels and moderation policy. You subscribe to "labelers" which will apply labels to posts. You can subscribe to many labelers. Some labelers will be generic or some will be focused on a certain idea/niche. You might have a labeler focusing on nsfw content or another for human vs ai content. Or one who just tags spiders. Labels c…

I'm building a Q&A/community on top of Nostr and using those same concepts:

Original Author posts a kind:1 note with a question

A bot sends a kind:1985 note (NIP-32 https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/32.md) that labels the content.

It can be done by the author (self-label), by an app, or by third parties (moderators/curators), depending on the trust model.

Other clients can decide to use that classification/label

--

For moderation purposes. If the behavior is closer to abuse (spam, scams, harassment...), use NIP-56 (Reporting). Reporting harmful/should-be-moderated content.

Re: Nature's many attempts to evolve a Nostr

#107
post #7

> Take some ordinary, off-the-shelf servers. Treat them as dumb, untrusted pipes. Sounds like REST. The original REST, not the botched CRUD that companies pushed for. https://roy.gbiv.com/pubs/dissertation/fielding_dissertation... > The combination of layered system and uniform interface constraints induces architectural properties similar to those of the uniform pipe-and-filter style. See also Figure 5-8. The disser…

The key thing is that all messages are signed and have a few standard fields, making them easy to replicate across many relays while maintaining the ability to verify their origin. And the second thing being that it is based on websockets, allowing the client to maintain an open connection and have new data be pushed instantly rather than relying on polling.

Have you read the document I linked?

I refered to a specific quote and figure in the dissertation.

Otherwise, I'm afraid we're comparing it with something else.

Re: Nature's many attempts to evolve a Nostr

#108
post #7

> Take some ordinary, off-the-shelf servers. Treat them as dumb, untrusted pipes. Sounds like REST. The original REST, not the botched CRUD that companies pushed for. https://roy.gbiv.com/pubs/dissertation/fielding_dissertation... > The combination of layered system and uniform interface constraints induces architectural properties similar to those of the uniform pipe-and-filter style. See also Figure 5-8. The disser…

The key thing is that all messages are signed and have a few standard fields, making them easy to replicate across many relays while maintaining the ability to verify their origin. And the second thing being that it is based on websockets, allowing the client to maintain an open connection and have new data be pushed instantly rather than relying on polling.

sorry but why is the "web" part relevant for that? cant you keep a normal tcp or udp connection open?

Re: Nature's many attempts to evolve a Nostr

#109
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proof of Work secures Bitcoin, and people definitely care about that.

You missed the point of what he is saying. The point is, proof of work used to post stuff to relays etc. is not solving the spam issue that Nostr is yet to face due to network effects. Your quip about people care about PoW because bitcoin uses it is just a very unrelated statement that is super off base. Nostr relays are like Discord "servers" if they were actually servers you could deploy yourself and each client ha…

I'm building a Nostr app (+- 2mio notes). There is a lot of spam and much worse content.

But it's kinda a solved problem (not through PoW) but through Web of Trust and not having algorithms. You see what the people/communities you follow post.

> I tried Nostr but like a lot of people here have been saying, it falls short in many ways due to the way it is structured. Relays are not really relays, they are more but also less. They are like community servers. Sure you can connect to many, have the same UI, but they are still disjoint and feels lonely.

I'd like to know more. Imho the fact that relays are dumb is a feature.

> You keep saying you can sign your messages and there is value there to people who are saying it is censorable in the ways they described.

All messages are signed. There is no way NOT to sign a message. This comes with the advantage that you don't need to trust the relays/pipes where messages go through which is an immense benefit

> This is not a personal thing, I want to like Nostr and I tried using it. I can and would probably get some use out of using it as a pubsub or message delivery infrastructure for two things I want to connect but what if the relay goes down? It is like a centralized pubsub messagebox thing. But can't even do that fully.

Relays go down all the time. There was an experiment where a major relay (Damus) just deleted the entire dataset. People barely noticed. And as any client (not just the author) and other relays can re-broadcast events the relay eventually recovers.

> There needs to be some sort of relay to relay communication (actual relaying) that needs to go on. And that wouldn't scale, even if it would work for now.

There are three mechanisms that do that:

- clients posts to multiple relays - clients/followers can rebroadcast notes (to other relays) - quite a few relays are syncing (negentropy sync)

Re: Nature's many attempts to evolve a Nostr

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please take a look at my other replies to other posts. Read about the outbox model, or Bitchat. The large relays are not required. They are a public service but not essential. There are plenty of community relays charging for access too, and the outbox model means you're not even depending on them. Nostr can and does successfully operate via even Bluetooth Mesh Networks. Search up Bitchat and see how it has been used…

if the solution to censorship is flooding the network posting the same message to multiple of their preferred relays in hopes that the recipient gets it, what happens if i get banned from all their preferred relays? i dont think i can message them directly so im effectively blocked

It doesn't work like that.

Your followers fetch the note from your relays. You tell the network where they can find your notes (self hosted relay) and their client will take the effort to find your content

Post reply on HN