The way you talk about Nostr conceptually is why I've been recently saying that Nostr suffers from a form of cognitive dissonance.
What you appreciate are concepts, or NIPs. There's nothing wrong with liking certain nips, or clients, or users/devs on Nostr.
What I'm saying is relays are the problem.
Lightning isn't part of Nostr.
Nip-05 does not need relays.
Nip-07 does not need relays.
Fetching and publishing events does not need relays.
This network of relays doesn't scale and the protocol doesn't impact the architecture.
So you have a problem with decentralization? Where are you going to publish and fetch the data from?
And yes you need a relay to fetch the Kind 0 data.
Not if you design a different protocol
Weird extrapolation. You can replicate Nostr on any system as Nostr is a simple system. No I don't have a problem with decentralization, I have a problem, again,
with limited architecture.
Still not clear on what your beef is.
What are relays missing?
Throughput and consistency, especially at scale. As well there are limitations with relays that will absolutely be a detriment at scale without some recourse.
I can pick beef with different NIPs of course, but the idea of relays that only allow read/write access needs some framework above it for managing events more consistently.
We don't even have that. We have relaytools which is the only architecture I really see stepping up to the plate. It did its best but it cannot fix lower-level problems because it is designing up from where we are.
So I follow mleku because I always wondered how the protocol would operate if relays worked over http instead. I have high hopes that this will allow me to continue developing in this space. If my projects seem unlikely to succeed under that paradigm, then I will keep building in other directions.
The idea of Nostr is great. The result is kinda good. But it has to scale to meet me demands, and what I see doesn't scale.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed