It looks like you're trying to not store people's keys forever, which I understand.
But even if you're not going to do it I think it could be a nice model to have a generic custodial bunker that could be used anywhere, and then after 1, 2, 3 months it would start sending emails to the person like you mentioned, and after 6 months maybe send them their keys and delete them locally.
If someone doesn't see the value in owning their profile and thus private key, they will not see the value of Nostr. Even if they join they will likely leave. If they then realize that they value that ownership, and then realize someone else created their key, they will not value that key because it has been compromised already.
There are other value propositions nostr offers than owning your key. For example, a community member being able to run your infrastructure (a relay for use with flotilla). That's a more familiar selling point, and since the key storage is done in a trusted context, the small possibility of the key being leaked to the community admin can be overlooked. I'm looking at this specifically in terms of a group of people who are highly interested in one particular nostr application, and completely unaware of nostr as a whole. Even if they have to burn their key, it's an improvement because they learn what keys are, and that nostr exists.
That seems so underhanded. There are plenty of other ways to introduce Nostr that doesn't try to hide the most important aspect of ownership. I'm so confused by this approach.
Try selling nostr to 100 people in your church and tell me how it goes
this is a joke that is no joke.
Not all may understand. Consider this parable from Luke 5:37-38: "And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved."
I agree, Flotilla could gradually teach people about remote signing, i.e. using Flotilla's affiliated apps (Coracle) - "Now try to login to Coracle using this bunker-url etc". And then users would probably try to login to other apps. And then after a while you could explain that users should migrate to non-custodial signer so you could reduce risks for the user and yourself.
I wonder though whether we're shooting ourselves in the foot by trying to make the learning curve less steep... Instead of teaching users once "here is how you use Nostr - get a proper signer app and put keys there", we create these longer multi-step long-lasting flows which might create more confusion in the end. Still not clear to me where the balance is.
I think we will never know and there are millions of people out there and each will deal better with a different experience. Anyone who thinks they know what is the "best normie UX" is just delusional. The only thing we can do is try multiple approaches and do our possible best in each one of them.
“Anyone who thinks they know what is the "best normie UX" is just delusional. The only thing we can do is try multiple approaches and do our possible best in each one of them.”
oh my gosh, thank you.
I like this planned exit, but the bunker should work everywhere.
