I don't want to pay in order to tag someone on a post. If such a system is deployed to the level that my client can tell me "that tag will cost you 500 sats", I'll just stop tagging people.
Been thinking about inboxes for a while.. Trying to think of the perspective of a popular user who gets probably an overwhelming amount of inbox spam. So far all the gossip specs are missing something, they're missing the idea of paid relays. Paid relays, even for small amounts, think how nice this would be for popular users. Someone has to pay, to send to their inbox, send them a DM etc (even just a one time payment). This cuts malicious users/bots down at their kneecaps because it becomes possible to moderate your inbox. Without this, bots can just spin a million keys and destroy your nostr experience while laughing all the way to the bank (the bank that cost them nothing to use).
So, what I think needs to happen, is gossip spec should to expand to think more about the paid relay case, clients should make it clear to a user that the inbox for that user is paid, and help them do this, or point them at a secondary inbox (which is not checked that much because think about it, this is a common twitter problem too, big social media accounts don't even read their comments and they think this is a solution. Nostr can do better than this. Large accounts should not have to go into broadcast only mode or get constantly screwed by bots).
nostr:npub1acg6thl5psv62405rljzkj8spesceyfz2c32udakc2ak0dmvfeyse9p35c nostr:npub1l2vyh47mk2p0qlsku7hg0vn29faehy9hy34ygaclpn66ukqp3afqutajft nostr:npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z thoughts?
Discussion
what if it was just a one time payment tho, just like a relay membership to your inbox for 21 sats? I'd gladly pay some sats to be able to tag you or any large account (like jack, fiatjaf, will etc) if I thought it would increase them seeing my message. It's hard to imagine I know, most of us are not that big and don't mind the free spam. But, what if they do? How many GM fiatjafs are you willing to have, when someone writes a GM fiatjaf bot and cuts it loose on you and comments on every one of your notes? Already happens in anything jack posts, I am amazed he even manages to read or respond to anything at all.
There is something I like about the idea, and something I don't like. I think it is worthy of exploration. Right now, however, we have a more pressing problem in that people pick inbox relays that charge, and I have no way through my client (or any other client) to know that I can't contact those users or that I have to sign up to a certain relay to do so. I think the expedious solution is to get people off of paid relays where inboxes are concerned, and your idea is more long term.
Cool, yeah just bringing it up because it sounded like clients were trying to implement gossip and I'm trying to understand the meanings of the 3rd field in the 10002 and why it seems so sparse compared to the various UIs. If I was implementing a client, I'd want to know ALL the current settings from the gossip UI itself, "read, write, inbox, outbox, discover" and I was thinking "paid", "auth" are worthy of having in the field somehow in addition like "inbox-paid" or "inbox-auth" (DMs) that it might be good to think about now before everyone runs off and attempts to implement gossip in their client. Thanks for listening. Carry on. 🫡
Took me a while, but I finally think I understand how relays with Access Control Lists (or paid relays) can do their thing. It's not a gossip related thing, it's simply a client thing. If clients do their normal gossip thing, when they encounter an inbox that is paid, they can simply show this information to the user. Nostrudel has a nice way of popping up this "toast" notification for everytime you publish a note, it shows the relays that succeeded and failed. So if clients just show this, they can say "hey, this note didn't make it to these inboxes because of reason: X" Retry? Visit Relay landing page?
I find myself watching the gossip logfile all the time to see this kind of thing, maybe gossip client can show this user feedback as well in the future, and then there doesn't need to be a disclaimer about using inboxes that have Access control or etc. (Or for upcoming when more relays rollout READ protection via. auth, etc.)
Well, I don't think it can be fixed on the writer-side. If I choose a bad inbox and your gossip notices it can't post there, you are not the one that can fix it, I am. I have to choose a different inbox relay. You would have to contact me and say "Hey your inbox isn't accepting my notes". Few people bother.
Somewhat disagree. Say someone chooses inboxes that require access control. This is on purpose, to fend off garbage and bots. The UI needs to notify the user attempting to send/connect to an access controlled inbox, that there are steps needed to send there.. visiting the relay landing page to see what the deal is, would be one option (the relay is paid, the relay only allows follows, the relay needs captcha, stuff like this)
Oh sure, that's fine. I thought you were talking about how people select which relay will be their inbox.
Because relay rules can be complex, and this is a growing field, I think the most a nostr client should do is
1) Indicate that the post failed,
2) Give the user a link to the relay support page, including information about the post that failed.
Then the user and the relay can "sort it out" using any complex method they want. And
3) Give the user a method to retry the post after they have sorted it out.
My point being that gossip cannot keep up with and implement in-UI schemes for relay payment, captchas, and every other fresh new idea someone comes up with.
NIP-11 doesn't have a general "support" URL, it only has a "payments_url". So maybe we should change that.
Yes, I think we are on the same page. Nip11 does have a link to policy.. perhaps this can be used. For all my relays I make sure the root domain landing page has all necessary info for users to figure it out. And I set all Nip11 fields that are available in the nip. I agree, for clients, there just needs to be ability to click a link for the handoff to 'more info'.
isn't that why you would have several options in your NIP-65 in/outbox advertisment?
also, you know, if the clients would support NIP-42 (does gossip btw?) reading from someone's outbox when one is the addressed recipient should be permissible and could only be gated as such by using NIP-42
implement NIP-42, that's to all client devs, not just you (you know i'm not using yours because i can't test with it)
NIP-42 isn't the only gate. Relays may want you to pay them some sats, or resubmit an event with a minimum PoW, or complete a CAPTCHA, or any number of other crazy anti-spam schemes that have yet to be invented.
Yes gossip does NIP-42. It is nearly essential to nostr at this point.
a better example is, say i only want people to inbox me on nostr.wine. This is already a relay many pay for, and many should pay for. They protect the DMs with nip42, and they're solid. But if i set this as my only inbox, clients will just get silently rejected.
an element of the use cases for NIP-42 nobody except me is always going on about is that it should be required to access DMs. PEROID.
you sign with an npub that isn't either the sender or receiver of the DM... straight to jail
