the larger conversation, as i just mentioned, which you were not involved in at the start and obviously did not bother to be sure you understood is this conversation is about deleting at the protocol level. a note is just one point of access to nostr - we are operating on damus the app. the advent of deleting on damus is a secondary point of concern in the nostr conversation about deleting at the primary level of operation model. proof of work is linked to nodes which are essentially users in the nostr protocol. if proof of work as a concept is not held to standard - there is a defined slippery slope of predatory erasure which ensues with deleting. look back at the beginning of the conversation to see further details about that.
Discussion
You obviously have no idea how Nostr works as a protocol or even what is it. Damus is just an app. It speaks Nostr as a protocol.
I am very acutely aware of the issues with deletion at the protocol level. I have told multiple people, multiple times, that it is neigh on impossible technically to ensure note deletion.
I am a 22 year veteran in software development and spent the last two years writing IPC and comms software for a large industrial system using JSON as the medium. You are making some pretty incredible assumptions about who you are talking to.
I’ve read the thread. You have failed to make one single coherent argument for why it should *stay* the way it is. nostr:npub1clk6vc9xhjp8q5cws262wuf2eh4zuvwupft03hy4ttqqnm7e0jrq3upup9 articulated how he felt about it more clearly and less patronizing my than you did in one sentence, which is why he will stay in my feed, and you won’t.
i don't care who you are or what your perceived level of importance is. you were not in the original layer of conversation.
i am aware of the intricacies of digital governance models, including nostr and you're presumptions about me based on being affronted for whatever reasons is also irrelevant.
i agree with you about deletion being impossible at the protocol level. so why are you insulting me and being disrespectful. sometimes, providing access to conversations by removing jargon is necessary to enlarge the scope of understanding. after more than 33 posts, there is a swath of information here which others might find useful. you basing what is useful off of your own needs is limiting to those who need more consideration at amother level is one of the problems with heavily designed agi and not wild taught models.
Purr🐯. I was just passing by and i heard your conversation. She made no assumptions about who you are, you took it personal. She was just sharing(showing off) what she knows about nostr, open protocol and other boring stuff😜. Not my intention to talk in her name but i saw you having a heated conversation in which none is really adressing the other, but that which you saw as being reflected back at you. Just sayin'. Can't you people really commune(icate)? 💓
everyone handles situations differently. i return to my original comment which states this user was not involved in the original al conversation and entered into it assuming and not being interested in learning or listening. which on a protocol scale, is a problem. because that behavior is being trained into models.
This isn’t an echo chamber. Others are allowed to leave, join, and contribute to the conversation. That’s what social media is… people talking. Limiting “who” can enter the conversation cause ya don’t like what they have to say is a mute point.
of course - it doesn't follow they get to join the conversation antagonistically, miss the point of the discourse and target the person instead of focusing on feeling the discovery and conversation.
like this reply you just chirruped. it's ridiculous. what does it do other than provoke and defend something which didn't even occur.