I am not being glib here, Primal is the number 1 argument against Nostr I come across. I don’t really have a response against the argument either, other than hoping that Primal changes or it eventually becomes a marginal client. But at this moment, all we have is promises while it probably is the most popular client out there.
For those not aware, Primal does not use relays on the input side, although it does on the output side. This means that it connects to a caching server, not a relay, and you will only see what is on there. If someone references an event that is not on that server, even though relay hints are included, tough luck; the only redeeming factor is that those outside of this primal box will see your complaint you can’t see the event.
These quirks resulting from Primal being Notes and other stuff transmitted by cashing-server, instead of relays are annoying, but the most worrying part is the fact that its a real manifestation of the biggest fragility Nostr has as a protocol: Clients ignoring the spec and the design philosophy of openness and interoperability while being in a dominant popular position. I can make arguments all day about the theoretical merits of Nostr, but they are easily undermined by pointing to Primal. What am I supposed to say in response? More theoretical notions like people being able to change software, even though we know that is just not going to happen?
I understand people will retain their profile, social graph, posts etc. if they move to another client, but as it stands those just become excuses for Primal to be a bad actor; how about just fixing your shit, so I don’t have to manually broadcast my stuff so people in the Primal-box can see it, but above all I can argue for Nostr without having to concede that the censorship resistant theory is not living up to practice. nostr:nevent1qqspy7pxqwk66dm46yxwetee0m2lrz5zeh2ldcwycrt6fuegyrllqlctrjx2f
