that's true but I'm not the dev and I didn't say it's novel design.
Discussion
and, many times critics are definitely not trying to help. I've been active in this space for long enough to know this.
some smart people just get triggered because they have this reflexive "that's not the way, I know the real way" response. sounds great, how about you contribute? that's where they suddenly turn quiet again.
presenting: i2p
Yes it exists
here are my thoughts from what I have read from your posts:
nostr is inherently an unreliable transmission medium, as notes may be rejected, reordered, delayed, or not delivered for a multitude of reasons and relays will be built with this assumption
the current design doesn’t implement any flow control or retransmission I believe, so this can be a problem
implementing another TCP like layer on top of nostr events is vulnerable to a meltdown, where the lower layer having losses causes delays in the upper layer causing retransmissions and more load on the lower layer
there is also the fact that nostr and IP have different service quality goals
on nostr latency can be in the seconds, caching will exist and QoS can be applied for different events
IP has some loss and reordering tolerance, but it is expected that paths have mostly constant latency and throughput, and that path switches happen rarely
there is also the problem of encryption, the naive approach puts too much load on the main key that may be stored on a TPM or similar for security
session keys should be established, but at that point you are reinventing TLS and may as well publish unencrypted packets
another problem is overhead: from base64 encoding binary data to having things like WS and 2 reliable transmission stacks
and in the end relays are just a rendezvous point for client/server, and there are already solutions like TURN
for privacy benefits you can use the already actively developed project I2P, and there is no advantage to NWS
I honestly want to be convinced about ecash; it makes sense to have as many arrows in the quiver as possible. n=1 here but I'm simply not convinced and there are some fairly rudimentary questions about usage that nobody seems to have a good answer to. There are some very narrow use cases, but it doesn't look like a viable scalable payment method to me. In remain interested though.
So if I link you to better things than NWS, you will contribute instead of hype its silly design?
Consider the opposite perspective.
Someone's style in replying is not relevant really. What matters is whether they complaining or criticizing.
You can discern this by whether they are providing advice with their criticism.
Sometimes, if they are rude, it is a reaction to the hubris, not merely jealousy or whatever.
How about you care about what you do instead of caring what I do?
*about
some smart people just get triggered because they have this reflexive "that's not the way, I know the real way" response. sounds great, how about you contribute? that's where they suddenly turn quiet again.
btw, it is worth considering that the reason i am caring about what you do is because of some amount of interest and respect, and desire to collaborate
maybe you dont care, that is fine, but some re-evalution of your comments and perspectives here might be worth it, as i dont see any way to actually collab with anyone in nostr or ecash on reasonable terms right now, without "bending the knee" in some form
Well I do care but I fail to see what your specific issue is. This is one project out of many, and I'm not the dev working on it, I'm just presenting it. If you want to contribute to this, I'm sure you'd be welcome to. If not, you probably have a different idea in your mind and that's fine with me too. 🤷♂️
It's called snobbery ^^