Nostr Web Client

After much discussion and consideration, I have decided to remove the reactive deployment method and the legal/moral motivations from the BIP document.

I still think those things are important and the reactive deployment may become necessary in an emergency, but I want to continue building consensus and those features were hampering progress.

I hope to have the new draft ready in the next day or two.

Thanks to everyone for your support so far.

Ali2k 2mo ago

I think "Reactive" is necessary.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Dathon Ohm 2mo ago

Can you explain your reasoning?

Ali2k 2mo ago

Right now we need a reactive measure, not a protracted one! This softfork was initiated precisely for the emergency CSAM use case. I think there is no need to compromise on an emergency softfork.

Aside from that, I think the presence of the reactive softfork option will push consensus more towards a preactive softfork, which is good.

The long-term, more cautious action can be discussed later; that is a time-consuming topic.

Ali2k 2mo ago

The question isn't how we ship it, it's when the problem becomes undeniable enough that the entire network wants to ship it. That's the trigger.