> Because that is what you sound like to me. Incapable of actually evaluating anything critically, instead leaning on whatever fallacies let you stay the way you are instead of become interested in outside things.
lol. Didn’t you suggest I should only talk about your ideas.
I think we’re done, but good luck with your thing
Concession accepted. Let me know when you have counterarguments and can agree on definitions without being distracted.
I don’t believe I conceded anything. I’m just not really interested in feeding the trolls.
Happy you have something to work on and honestly good luck with it.
In some ways Nostr is already a “success”, given it’s a thriving ecosystem of people building outside the status quo
Do we have to put a definition on success? as relevant as it maybe for this discussion, it’s also limiting in its nature. Who knows what this might become!
I am still no clearer on why Johns original tweet story has any merit… ie Nostr can’t scale and can’t be censorship resistant at scale…
If the goal was to prove that people will build outside the status quo, Nostr succeeded.
But if the goal is to create a scalable, censorship-resistant web that normal people can rely on, then it hasn’t even begun to meet that bar.
What I’m pointing out isn’t that Nostr shouldn’t exist. It’s that its design inherently caps its scalability and censorship resistance. The same loose structure that makes it "easy" to build on also makes it impossible to coordinate, enforce quality, or provide credible exits.
Success measured by enthusiasm is one thing. Success measured by capability is another.
Pedophile
Nostr is a hot mess. Impossible to build anything robust and scalable (I tried, and failed it).
It would be - let's say 'scientific' - to understand and test a product, before dismissing it out of hand out of sheer butthurtness.
