If you can select dedicated/trusted relays, you can partially sidestep this. See below for my post on the topic:
https://habla.news/u/hodlbod@coracle.social/1700155417145
The fact is, no has built groups "right". So until they do, I will build them wrong and happily adopt the better standard when it arrives.
It’s an improvement but ideally you don’t have to trust anyone and you can just use your Lightning node and onion encryption to totally obfuscate both the source and the content of messages. I can’t say too much but I know people working on stuff like this.
I think it’s better than using Nostr for this. Nostr is good for public facing profiles. Use the right tools for the right job.
Communication over lightning has always seemed odd to me. But even granting that, different solutions have different trade offs. I'm hoping to onboard non technical people who will have an uncle Jim setup in the best case, so an incremental improvement over centralized options is good enough for me.
A friend is trying to build a groups product on matrix and has hit major scaling issues. If nothing else, nostr is at least scalable.
I think Lightning is ingredient that promotes spam resistance and incentives just like Nostr could be an ingredient in some capacity.
Ultimately the ideal topology is onion routing or another solution that conceals the content source and destination of all messaging. That is the holy grail.
Yes, I think I agree. It will be interesting to see what form that takes. I can imagine lots of permutations related to transport, storage, note wrapping, etc. It would be awesome to come up with a transport-based solution that would be orthogonal to the data format, to get nostr-over-whatever.
You mistyped PoW there.
LN promotes spam resistance only for the sender and receiver, cause only they can tell if a payment (zap) is real or not. Any 3rd party cannot tell the difference between a payment and a self-payment.
Outside of direct connections, distingushing spam from non-spam becomes exponentially harder, the further you go down the social graph.
Problem is, there will always be good content voiced through anons. Any platform with a spam filter that ignores this is self-limiting.
A good way for anons to cut through the bot noise is with PoW.
Zaps are not cybil resistant so we agree there. It really doesn’t even matter who gets the funds you just need to make sure an anon sender has some cost to send or stake a message as non spam at least when onboarding
In a group context I see no problem with somebody being the Uncle Jim ensuring there’s no foul play on behalf of the group. Once funds are received sign an attestation. I don’t see that as exponentially difficult.
That's one hop away (you trust Uncle Jim).
But if one of Uncle Jim's friends (2nd hop) signs the attestation? What if its 3 hops away?
It gets real tricky real fast.
Not really. You either have Uncle Jim custody the group chat, have a DM. Or go on Nostr or something else if you want a public facing permissionless system where anything goes.
Nostr is not a protocol for A type of social network. It is an open protocol for ANY type of social network.
Nostr decentralizes identity, content, and transaction management between anonymous (as well as verified) user accounts.
This is how nostr will transform social media, not by replacing a single app but by transforming the way apps work together.
So no. It’s even better than you think.
nostr:note1q3eyss7f7kl5kjmk6udqudssmtsmdnrd3zzu3yczaryvgdatg9ts7fh2zh
What you’re saying is just platitudes and faith based but not actually objective reasoning.
Until there’s a solution that overcomes the aforementioned topological limitations that affect privacy everything you say is moot.
Wow. Ever heard of bottom up? I mean really. Faith based. Yes. But why not?
Are we not “on the way”, with demonstrable progress, obvious direction, and growing adoption? These are measurable objectives.
But of course, this IS coming from an admitted optimist. So there’s that.
I’m all for optimism but it has to be balanced with rigor. If we’re not honest about where we are what is needed and what’s possible then we can’t figure out where we’re going. Bottom line.
