Global Feed Post Login
Replying to Avatar jb55

Im ok with centralized banning of spammers on public relays. Hopefully this is the censorship we can all get behind. That and banning cp on media hosts.

I’m ok with coordinated engineering efforts to censor specific things while keeping the network censorship resistant for legitimate activity. Bitcoin is censorship resistant but still “censors” certain types of spam at the p2p layer so everyone can actually use the system for its intended purpose.

Bitcoin is even more extreme, these censorship rules (standardness rules) are centralized and decided by a few people. I’m not even suggesting that, i’m just suggesting a reputation based approach that relays can tap into or not.

Spam does not deserve the same censorship resistance properties as legitimate activity. nostr:note1czywrqx87muljstlez0r4c8075ddsukxv0pmv6wvcrfq3lfqtrnqy2r2l2

Avatar
Melvin Carvalho 1y ago

Cypherunk thinking. Practical, effective, correct. Truth is we've been banning the bad IPs for years. As Jimmy Wales said at the start of wikipedia, "people think wikipedia is a battle between good actors and bad actors -- it's not, its a battle between content writers, and vandals".

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.