> the nostr community seems happy with JSON, with websockets, with a single key using FROST remote signing, with finding relay lists on "popular" relays, with relays using URLs not keys, depending on CAs and DNS, outbox model being optional, AUTH command ordering issues, kind1 vs kind1111 issues, the notion of relays being front-and-center in user's minds is debatable (I think they can and should be mostly hidden magic), the fact that every relay is deeply different and there is almost no way to know what you are getting. The simplicity ethic I feel is taken too far. And the just one-way rule. NIP-11 out of band is a pain. Endless stream of breaking changes.

Disagree. I think most users are not developers. What you're describing is architectural. Few people aspire to be network architects, especially not for low-level grant-based funding, especially not in JSON spaghetti net land.

Forking the protocol is healthier than pretending this iteration will thrive at scale.

Testnet nostr was not a failure. It is simply a stepping stone and a learning exercise. There is inherently a lack of collective direction. To find something new and interesting that works without conflict would be exceptional, not a threat. People want to move forward.

In the end, software should be FOSS and collectively-enabled. We have agreed that we want to be here- ask yourself why that is. The answer is partially gif buttons, nip-25, dm's.

The other part of the answer is good architecture to support the millions of ways people use the internet, and how to intricately weave them together.

Produce something you actually desire to use in your daily life and work backwards. 🧑‍🔧

Should I edit this or just post it 🤔🧐