Why would VC’s care about Nostr? Enough to spend time engaging & zapping?
Serious question.
#nostr is more centralized than #eth. But uses #bitcoin in order to look nice while in the end it’s just VC nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m puppets all around
Discussion
Did we just find nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6’s alter-ego?
If #nostr keep being centralized there’s work for cache and indexing to be done by middle-man’s aka VCs. In a p2p model you have to request the notes directly from your peers. Without any relay. That’s how #bitcoin work. Bitcoin don’t ask permission to post a 1000 tx but if I try to put 1000 notes per second the nostr relay operator will flag my notes and probably block. That’s censure from the beginning.
Bitcoin’s consensus rules limit what you can do to your peers. You can’t do 1000 txs per second on-chain lol. You have a poor understanding of decentralization and trust-minimization — permissionless doesn’t mean lawless. Anyone can run a relay, and if a relay bans you - you can move your content elsewhere. That’s beautiful. If you don’t get it, sorry.
Furthermore, bitcoin SPV proofs do require asking a “relay/full-node” for information you don’t have — as verifiable merkle branches. Bitcoin is not entirely P2P. Nostr may benefit from P2P eventually, but mastering the user-server model first is wise. All good things in due time.
I do agree mastering the user-server first was a wise strategy but it’s getting out of control. The things here are resembling web2.0 products exactly the way they’re. I just don’t get how keep pushing web2 tech can lean towards decentralization.
You should check out the multimedia relay we’re building… we evolved Merkle DAGs (used by IPFS) to move away from http entirely. The branches are thinner than IPFS Merkle DAG branches are could be used to download parts of someone’s profile from tons of different relays, branch by branch. Give #nostr time to grow! 🌱https://www.hornetstorage.com/dag-trees
merkle trees, and merkle dags, etc, also have the same topology as packet switched networks, and the data size requirement increase for the number of pieces exactly corresponds with the message count required for a message broadcast over a network.
it's simply not possible to make it scale without changing the propagataion strategy, in both cases.
You’re thinking in a client-server mode when you talk about permission. In a p2p infrastructure I don’t have to push my notes to any place. The audience will have to ask for the notes from the peer they’re requesting from. Being my own host I can publish as my wishes. Having my own private nostr server doesn’t fit the same requirements because it’s like an isolated island without any communication between the servers. It’s not a network (yet?)
Is bitcoin not a network because people use SPV proofs to request data from full-nodes? Your semantic arguments bore me.
nostr:note16aa889627a5rxct0vc4peh2s2q7hqt4yfq0dq8w6skhklhlp9mpqw5j85l
I really didn’t get what’s your point talking about SPV. SPV’s request info from another peers in a p2p style. Same as I’m proposing here. Beside this SPV is a “don’t verify, trust” server.
SPV proofs are a user-server model… users only store the block headers. That isn’t P2P because users don’t store the blocks. Therefore, SPV proof requests are like requesting notes from relays.
You’ve got a lot to learn about the differences! :-)