Heh, I applied for a $20k grant to do a proper analysis of Nostr's decentralization on Saturday. Same idea (and similar cost) as my recent L2 Covenants article. Only took them one business day to reject it (took them 6 weeks to reject my grant request to keep OpenTimestamps running).
I'm not surprised. I strongly suspect there isn't much good to say about Nostr's decentralization and I hear OpenSats is funding a bunch of Nostr. Nostr needs a serious redesign.
Lol yeah at least for now. There are over a thousand relays. I wonder how many of those are actually getting used regularly.
I don't know why they did what they did, but that is I report I would like to see even though I disagree with your general take that Nostr is fundametally centralized. Keep pushing.
Peter was very public about seeing serious issues but I haven't seen him consider the outbox model.
I've seen some project - was it some git replacement? - using some DHT to store the outbox relays of users and with TOR in the mix ... how is nostr not decentralized? I don't get the criticism and thus I don't get the need to spend $20k on exploring problems that are not problems yet.
Yes, nostr is dirty and naive in its approach but it still might actually work.
That's what I like about it. In theory it sucks, in practice it works.
It's like e-mail. Super bad idea to do it like it was invented, but we found a way to use it daily and it just works.
Overengineered designs earn PhDs, but don't have users.
I would like to see it, but not as a report, but a dashboard, so it's open. Not sure why that would cost 20k to make, but if you have a basic prototype or architecture of what you're talking about building that'd be helpful to conceptualize what you're talking about
Re: the OpenTimestamps grant request, the problem is right now while the protocol scales in theory, the backend does not. It would be quite easy for a bad actor to DoS attack OpenTimestamps out of existence because I simply can't throw servers at the problem: the backend code just doesn't scale.
I need funding to put in a bunch of hours to fix this. So far, no luck in finding that; OpenSats is one of a few sources I've tried.
Frankly, I suspect that there isn't actually much interest in time-stamping.
Ironically this reply guys are a really nice example of a problem with Nostr's decentralization claims...
Do you know of an article that describes the concern you and nostr:nprofile1qqsrhuxx8l9ex335q7he0f09aej04zpazpl0ne2cgukyawd24mayt8gprdmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuam9wd6x2unwvf6xxtnrdakj7qgnwaehxw309amk7apww468smewdahx2tckuej4c have about nostr's lack of decentralization and what other systems to compare it with that meet the standard you are applying to consider it sufficiently decentralized?
What does the reply bots have to do with Decentralization?
who guarantees you're going to get it right this time if you have already proven you suck with the first version?
What have you built and gotten perfect from the start lately? But nice roast.
Is there some way a handful of volunteers (hi) could help with standing up additional backends? I guess that would imply also publishing a list of "mirrors" somewhere, but maybe Nostr help with that somehow? ...I guess not without other prior work in nostr on DNS/name resolution features. Hm
what's the estimated time to complete this analysis?
To be exact, IIRC I estimated it at 153 billable hours at $150/hr. Billed like lawyers do, with only time spent directly on the task. So for a "days" work that means 4 hours billed like that.
I also offered doing it as a fixed price contract.
Wow, it seems like you've had some frustrating experiences with grant applications!
I'm not surprised to hear that Nostr's decentralization might be lacking. It's great that you're willing to dig deeper and analyze the issue.
The image link you provided looks like a screenshot from Nostr, which appears to be a decentralized social network. If OpenSats is funding projects related to Nostr, it's possible that they have a vested interest in promoting its decentralization (or lack thereof).
A redesign of Nostr might be necessary to improve its decentralization and make it more appealing to users who value privacy and security.
It'll be interesting to see if you decide to pursue the analysis despite the rejection. Do you think you'll reapply or consider alternative funding options?
Also, what do you think are some potential issues with Nostr's decentralization? Is it related to its architecture, governance, or something else?
imo opentimestamps is the coolest project built on bitcoin
1000x more important than an "analysis" whatever the heck that even means
They pay sats not dollars?
you never fail to be objectionable
nostr:npub1ej493cmun8y9h3082spg5uvt63jgtewneve526g7e2urca2afrxqm3ndrm Would you be willing to share the full details of the application? Perhaps the basis wasn't very well communicated.
I don't have a copy. It's a web form, and OpenSats doesn't give you a copy of what you submitted.
That could be an optional flag on their form perhaps: “Email / DM me a copy”, or maybe even “Publish publicly” which allows crowd-funding donations direct to initiatives that the community is genuinely interested in. That would be pretty dang cool, coming from a big ol’ pillar like OpenSats
Good idea
