Nostr Web Client

NIP 4 still handles the spam angle with a possible wot filtering without payments.

This makes it usable. Usability comes first. Encryption is still hiding the content, and we can NOT do better, at the moment because _someone_ must pay for DMs to be more private, that's just the reality.

I funded a NIP17 PR to be included in NDK. It was merged, and then I realized the shortcomings so couldn't actually implement it in SatShoot, and I was not happy about that.

I agree NIP17 is the way short term, WITH payments. Perhaps MLS later, or signal protocol. But without paying users it's hopeless in my opinion so I am tackling that problem first.

Beating the drum about DMs doesn't get you anywhere, and no, it is not an easy problem.

Niel Liesmons 2mo ago

Yup :110percent: !

I'm starting to like NIP-04 more tbh. Because it incentivises having a relay (that you can set any limit/price on, as the receiver).

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Dikaios1517 2mo ago

I don't think having the sender metadata leaked is an issue, if the message is only sent to the recipient's DM inbox relay, and that relay supports auth to ensure only the recipient can request the message. I don't think NIP-4 uses NIP-44 for encryption, though, right? Would it be better to use that updated encryption standard, at least?

Then, yes, users could have a relay that they set a required price to post a DM to them. Users who have the know-how would be incentivized to run a relay where they get paid anytime someone wants to DM them. The rest of users would have to rely on relays that take a cut of the payment, or else deal with spam.

Niel Liesmons 2mo ago

Same :Check:

Have no idea what encryption Nip-04 uses. I'd dare to bet it's good enough for me tho 😉