Nostr Web Client

the short of it is that Parker is more concerned with reach than censorship.

To be fair censorship resistance without reach is meaningless. Everyone in the world has more or less immediate access to censorship resistance without reach. I can stick a note on my window and nobody can come in to my house and take my "window account" away. Or I can get a tattoo. Or I can write anything I want on my computer and save it as my screensaver. What's the reach though?

Basically you need a certain level of reach before you can make censorship resistance an attractive selling point.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

William ₿ Travis 10mo ago 💬 1

I'm not sure I agree. I don't feel the need to talk to thousands of people with Elon's permission. I'm happy with a small group no one controls.

BOL 10mo ago

Now, Joe?, do the Venn overlap of reach with truth and lies

Garbage nsec 10mo ago 💬 1

That's fair, though I'd argue that asking someone who *already has* a lot of reach to trade in that reach for censorship resistance would rightfully lead that someone to ask "what's the point?". It's essentially asking them to retire and then spend their days shooting the breeze with their pals in a bar.

William ₿ Travis 10mo ago 💬 1

I guess the question is then why is he into bitcoin? is it just a great asset in fiat terms? Looking for a consistent position, here.

Garbage nsec 10mo ago 💬 1

I've no idea. I'm new to bitcoin. Though I do observe that bitcoin people view bitcoin as very different than other coins/crypto. There is only one bitcoin, as it were. But there are very many decentralised social networking protocols, and I could see someone asking on what basis Nostr gets to be the "bitcoin of them all" (and not the "eth of them all" or the "ripple of them all" or whatever). Architecturally they're all quite similar, just different sets of trade-offs.

William ₿ Travis 10mo ago 💬 1

we definately view bitcoin as different. and I don't see it as a twitter vs nostr thing but a centralized vs decentralized thing.

Garbage nsec 10mo ago 💬 1

I suppose but then I'd expect passionate bitcoin folks to prefer a social networking protocol that is far more decentralised than Nostr.

William ₿ Travis 10mo ago 💬 1

like what?

Garbage nsec 10mo ago

OG-nostr for one. That is to say nostr as first envisioned, with outbox across the board and users spread evenly across 1k or more relays (no relay clumping), and anything requiring a global view either not part of client architecture or (when tech matures) achieved through decentralised means, such as decentralised indexing. Plus relays being financially viable.

You can also make a technical argument that a hacked-together AT-proto network consisting of self-hosted PDSs, custom scaled-down app-views and an alternate DID/PLC directory (i.e. all of it totally detached from any company) would actually be more 'bitcoin like' than nostr. With that you wouldn't have the "not your relay, not your notes" and "not your storage, not your media" stuff to deal with (it's all on the PDS and, critically, content addressed) and you would also have general scalability closer to that of bitcoin, especially with how ATproto handles lexicons. Of course the cultures of bluesky and bitcoin don't align well, but such an ATproto network can be implemented entirely outside of bluesky's purview, and some have been already by enthusiasts.

I myself am not interested in Nostr for max decentralisation or censorship resistance. I’m interested in Nostr for commerce, interop and the integration of e-cash, so the way nostr is developing is totally fine for me. But I can understand how a bitcoin purist would see it as anathema.