Replying to Avatar sommerfeld

I don't see point 1 as a structural problem and I believe it will be solved in practice.

I wholeheartedly agree with point 2 though. I think one of biggest contributors to that could have been "zaps". Before that, nostr and bitcoin were totally decoupled protocol wise. It should never have been a NIP. It forever cemented nostr as a "bitcoiner" thing.

nostr:nevent1qqstc7uh2anhmej9qxssrwlwznlh5zk4cws4zv2fcmcdwhze0xduj5cpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7q3qacg6thl5psv62405rljzkj8spesceyfz2c32udakc2ak0dmvfeysxpqqqqqqzkyehrf

Avatar
ItsyBitsyHodl 1y ago

Agreed that “zaps” tie Nostr and bitcoin at the hip. But, in order to bootstrap a decentralized, V4V protocol it seems obvious that bitcoin would play a primary role. Or is the ability to receive money for content creation not necessary for the protocols success? I would say it is, but certainly am open to counterpoints.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
sommerfeld 1y ago

Why does payments have to be part of the protocol and can't be done "out of band"?

Even if it is part of the protocol, why does it have to be bitcoin specific? It could just be generic and be settled in anything (dollars, monero, gold, potatoes, milk).