Saylor doesn’t understand #nostr.
“The AI could generate 100 million Nostr people”
Paid relays and PoW keys already exist as spam countermeasures and are FAR better at defeating the problem than anything any other social platform has tried to date.
My attention is behind a Bitcoin paywall and AI ain’t going to put a 100 Million people in to that space because it doesn’t have the corn.
He didn't understood even #Bitcoin at his first attempt.. he will get it when he will put time on it for real.
vibe....
#clownstr
He come aroundstr.
What was it specifically that he said in relation to nostr ? Does he think that it will fail because of AI?
For paid relays to really address this, do they need to up the fee's for the relays to be more effective ?
I think we should welcome any discussion of Nostr that brings potential issues to the front , even if they are not necessarily true , becuase as we all know nostr is in its infancy , and by simulating potential reasons for failure in a "sanbox" environment , I definetly think that is a win win . Nostr's success is by no means set in stone .
He was trying to talk about the benefits of proof of work.
Mentioned zaps and how that can mitigate Sybil attacks - even Peter was able to knock that on the head because nostr still has likes and there is no requirement for zaps.
Then he had some other point which he had to restart twice because he wasn’t making any sense and Danny said he wasn’t understanding him either and he couldn’t get a point across at all.
He didn’t know about/mention PoW keys, nor paid relays (which is just abstracted PoW).
Kept getting bogged down in bits and data security but couldn’t say why it mattered.
I know I’m biased against him already but he had nothing worth listening to.
I need to look up what Sybil attacks are for my own clarification.
When you mentioned the whole thing about Zaps and likes there, is that to say that having likes instead of only zaps is a potential attack vector?
I know there are so many people that love Saylor because he has big Bitcoin balls , and rightly so , but we should take every opportunity to hold eveyones feet to the fire, but allow them space to be human, because to err is to be human.
No, he was making the point that to attack the network through zaps you have to participate in the PoW and are constrained by Bitcoin. Basically saying it’s superior to likes (which it is) because they can be botted whereas Zaps that risk is lower, but because zaps are optional the whole point is moot.
Do you think Nostr should migrate to a zap only system in order to mitigate the risk of these bot attacks in the furture?
No. Nostr as a protocol should have as many options as possible. Clients can opt to be zap-only but others find utility in reactions, having options will lead to better outcomes.
Right so have as many options as possible, but in the hopes of a sort of natural selection will do it's thing.
