Nostr Web Client

The market will set a price. Market participants will make trade-offs. For example some may with you use liquid, which also has taproot. While not as secure, it offers cheaper transactions. A group of nostr users or relays could run an Element server, and so on.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

yes but what is the point of a consensus for a pubsub system?

the whole point is just best effort delivery of messages to interested parties, anything else is missing the point

a mechanism for creating E2EE DMs would be much more useful direction to query in - like, so, we have these schnorr pubkeys and schnorr signatures, how can we use this with taproot style tweaks and such to make it possible to have a stateless, metadata leakproof messaging protocol

now, you answer that one and you have actually solved a real problem

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

note that such a solution would have bearing on the brittleness of lightning network state channels

Melvin Carvalho 1y ago

I am working on a chat system too, but I need other things in place first.

I see it the other way round. It's not a consensus system for pubsub. It's a pubsub system for consensus. Imagine global conensus, turing complete, infinite use cases, strong privacy, double spend protection, with a social aspect, and realtime updates.

That's what timechain + nostr gives you.

It's timechain + nostr. Not nostr + timechain. Hint: always has been.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

nonsense

anyhow, i've been on record for a long time about how the bitcoin p2p network could use something better than the ad-hock rambling propagation pattern than it has, in order to create an intermediate staging consensus, a mempool consensus, i think i first started talking about it a year ago maybe

nostr protocol can do such a thing but it's overkill and it isn't a consensus it's just a propagation mechanism

https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.03291

this is much more like a possible thing to augment the mempool into an intermediate consensus

Melvin Carvalho 1y ago

Well this is another different idea. But it seems fine in principle. Nostr could do checkpointing, for example. Why not.

An important aspect of bitcoin is that the emission was a level playing field. That has taken 15 years of track record, and millons of proofs. We are bout 96% done.

After emitting the coins fairly and as a level playing field, much of the hard work of consensus is done, the emission part. What remains is a robust ordering system. It is possible to innovate in that space, the harder thing would be to get universial consensus.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

you need to seriously study distributed systems, i mean badly, i'm not continuing this conversation, you are throwing out every single naive idea that i had 10 years ago that doesn't work

Melvin Carvalho 1y ago

What does work then? Show, dont tell.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

if such a thing existed we would be talking about it, i never claimed to have the solution i just said that none of these things make one

Melvin Carvalho 1y ago

Then it's just an appeal to authority from someone that has neither designed, built or used such a system, saying that something cant be done. Thanks for your thoughts, but we can agree to differ on that one.