nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqnjst6azswskk5gp3ns8r6nr8nj0qg65acu8gaa2u9yz7yszjxs9sxh02y3 nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqcgd35mxmy37vhkfcmjckk9dylguz6q8l67cj6h9m45tj5rx569cqry82a3 It's not even possible for NOSTR to operate on a mainstream scale without either centralizing or fragmenting.
Discussion
If you only spent the time solving problems instead of whining about how unsolvable they are you'd probably see a whole new world of possibilities.
I can't comment on this cos I know fuck all, but I do know the devs here insist this is not true with complicated rebuttals.
I can't see how nostr even reaches mainstream scale, or if that is that plan (?)
It would be quite significant just to have a fraction of substack user numbers ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
nostr has to fragment to scale. fragmentation isn’t a bad thing, human associations are naturally fragmented, as long as the relay models allow dynamic cross connections when needed (which they do)
even fragmentation used in this context starts from a paradigm of centralization.
but cellular grouping and morphic waxing and waning of different grouping points is natural in any free system.
the real challenge is long term, interoperable consensus of the base protocol.
There is no consensus, or global state on nostr, it is by design, any kind of verification is through the verification of the event signature itself. I'm not sure how we keep circling back to the "global state" argument.
incorrect.
without consensus on how the base protocol operates, there is no nostr.
Ahh my bad, I thought you meant consensus in the global state of events. But you mean consensus in what the protocol means itself, yes, that's going to be interesting to follow, that's a challenge we've seen with bitcoin as well.
oh gosh. yeah. i dont think that kind of “consensus” has ever been achieved in human history 👍
Fragmentation isn't bad...