Replying to Avatar Leo Wandersleb

My argument above was that we are probably irrationally shocked by the data volume of things we want to decentralize.

Collaborative curation would be awesome and we could start small but maybe not too small. I would love to move the nip registry onto nostr. Let nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 maintain a list of nips and other approve of the list or not. How hard can it be?

With the WoT idea, I imagine being able to refer to "nip1" in a way ... like %nip1 such that your client would know where to look up what my understanding of "nip1" is. If I define ["nip1", "fiatjaf.nip1"] in the right place, your client would get you there. I think there is little missing for this to work. The idea of pet names is there and the rest can be done with some parametrized replaceable events.

Rebuilding something in a truly decentralized fashion (and it’s probably worth thinking about what that even means, exactly) will likely require approaching / building lots of things differently than we are used to. For instance, we would need to make sure we don’t run into the problem you mention where Bob ends up expected to pay for storage of old data. Perhaps we would have to relax the expectation from the outset that a fully fleshed out snapshot of the entire App Store must get backed up just bc Bob’s WoT likes it at that moment in time. If he wants to back the whole thing up, he could do that separately. Just like I may have a local list of the 1000 best rock songs of all time, per Rolling Stone; it doesn’t mean I necessarily have them all on my phone. But maybe I’ll use the WoT-curated list tomorrow to help me decide whether to purchase one.

(I hope I’m following your line of thought. Let me know if I’m misunderstanding!)

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.