Nostr Web Client

Glad you liked it! To answer your questions: yes I do envision nostr users rating other users. The linked is an article with screenshots from my proof of concept app, where users rate other users as trustworthy or not in the context of curating a specific list of interest. It doesn’t implement the entire tapestry protocol, just the very early stages of it. The next step in the protocol will be to curate a graph of categories associated with each list. I have not yet built a proof of concept for the graph, but the methodology will be pretty similar as for simple lists.

https://github.com/wds4/pretty-good/blob/main/appDescriptions/curatedLists/overview.md

david 1y ago

I haven’t seen the QTS system but I’ll take a look. I’m using kinds 39901 and 9901 as per the part of the tapestry protocol which interfaces with nostr. The article I linked to shows examples with technical details.

The tapestry protocol is technically independent of whatever network is used to store and send data. I was building it on top of IPFS before nostr was born, but technically you could use either or both at the same time. I think nostr is the best place for me to start. There is a section of the tapestry protocol that describes how to interface with nostr, but I have a stub for IPFS and anyone could add a section for whatever other network they might want to use.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Robert Allen 1y ago

Here's an article where he goes into QTS: https://yakihonne.com/article/naddr1qq25gnzpveay5jns29z9xdrkdgehw5mvv46k6q3qarkn0xxxll4llgy9qxkrncn3vc4l69s0dz8ef3zadykcwe7ax3dqxpqqqp65wuucp8v

david 1y ago

Thanks for the reference. It reminds me of when I was following the OpenBazaar team and spitballing with them a little about their product rating system, which ended up being a 5-star system along a handful of dimensions: quality, delivery speed, a few others. There was no way to make everyone happy. Something like this that seems like it ought to be straightforward from a distance ends up getting really complex, really fast, when you sit down to build it. So many choices. So many design decisions. And as a builder you have to pick exactly what is best for your consumers. Which turns out to be impossible, bc everyone has different needs and wants and opinions. And different rating systems may make sense in different contexts, different applications, for different people.

The lesson I took is that we need a system that allows the rating systems to be designed by the community. Seems impossible but I think it can be done. It’s a consensus problem: how can a decentralized community arrive at consensus on a language? On the digital tools of communication? It works for the spoken word — why can’t it work for our digital tools? This is what the tapestry protocol is designed to do. In this instance, the community might come up with multiple rating systems and your grapevine could help you select which one is the best for any particular context. Different systems for different applications. As a user you could attest to your opinion regarding the rating system, or just let your grapevine figure it out for you, depending on your level of interest.

david 1y ago

You’d think sorting products by an average rating is a simple enough thing to do, but nope. Here’s an article I showed to the Open Bazaar team about a wrong way and a right way to do that.

https://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating.html

Here’s an article the OB team wrote (damn, 9 years ago! Time flies!) about their reputation system where they reference that Miller article.

https://medium.com/@therealopenbazaar/decentralized-reputation-part-2-6233cf2127bb

Again, the lesson here is that there are lots of ways to implement reputation. Often there’s no one obviously “best” way. No schelling point. So who gets to decide how to do it? Current answer: a repo manager, a dev team — in other words, a digital steward. Better answer: your web of trust.