please stop calling it gossip. it's the outbox model, based on clients publishing an in/outbox set and using them to publish and fetch notes from - so if someone replies to a note from you, they publish to your inbox set, and vice versa
it's got more in common with a promiscuous version of POP/SMTP than gossip, gossip has a very specific meaning in network tech
It's called the Gossip model because the first client to implement this procedure is named Gossip. It's modeled after that particular client. I'm never going to stop calling it the Gossip model unless relays themselves implement a gossip protocol. You're welcome.
that's ok, the rest of the entire edifice of distributed systems technology researchers are not gonna understand you because you insist on using a word that is loaded with a whole different meaning
he called the client this because it's censorship resistant and minimally checks messages before relays and clients pass them around, the same way as in a totalitarian regime they have to clamp down hard on gossip because the more you censor the more people gossip
if nostr used a gossip model it would have a spam problem that would require a consensus and that's part of the distinction about what kind of network architecture it uses
it's a pub-sub network, and in/outbox fits in with that pattern of message passing as well
but carry on, continue to use retarded, anecdotal, accidentally assigned labels to ensure that anyone who actually knows DST doesn't understand until they get a straight answer from someone who knows about this idiocy
We really should switch to "inbox/outbox model" or something, gossip is a pretty important concept we shouldn't overload
