Replying to Avatar Jack⚡️

Yes, nostr:npub18ams6ewn5aj2n3wt2qawzglx9mr4nzksxhvrdc4gzrecw7n5tvjqctp424 made a great post for this. 12 relays is a good spot. Going over 20 is likely to slow things down.

If all the clients used the outbox model, I think 2 relays is about right. My webpage is on only on one server and that has been fine - it is rarely down and nobody has tried to censor it (yet). Why should it be different for my nostr content? All the redundancy in nostr is only prematurely clogging up the relays for very little benefit. We can always scale up and use more relays for more redundancy if we find ourselves under a censorship attack, or whenever relay failures are common, and we can scale down and be less redundant as relays are more reliable.

But given that some clients aren't looking for events in people's declared outboxes (and many people don't declare anything at all), we still have a lot of unnecessary redundancy and even event copying (I think).

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

💯

it's not only about redundancy, it's also about reach and decentralization. Two relays is enough for redundancy thinking in most cases, but not enough for decentralization (imo).

People can only read from where notes are written. Ideally most notes are available on more than two relays, to at least minimize a centralized need to be on those relays.

But yes, to many relays also don't make much sense. So I agree :)

If everybody used the same 2 relays, yes. But if everybody chooses different 2 relays it's not centralizing. You don't need to "be on" a relay to read somebody's notes from it. You just need to connect and read, and you can stay connected if you want their future notes as they arrive, or you can come back later for more.

Fair point. I only considered read&write connections to relays! But there are as you say the possibility of read-only connections as well. Then all that gets possible without tangling everyone up in the same two.

:) Best regards, and happy Sunday to you!