You should team up with nostr:npub1dtgg8yk3h23ldlm6jsy79tz723p4sun9mz62tqwxqe7c363szkzqm8up6m
I'm working on WalletScrutiny.com and I'm trying to move all that could be called "attestation" to nostr with several goals:
* WalletScrutiny should not be the only authority on what we attest to. Others should be able to equally chime in and potentially provide alternative opinions.
* In nostr, events are signed by an author, with the signature being verifiable by the visitor.
* The author has followers or otherwise a web of trust which gives the visitor something to go by when judging whose attestation is worth something and whose not.
* Nostr is a protocol. Attestations could be integrated in other apps that ascribe value to them. zap.store for example could show attestations in the app store where available. bitcoinbinary.org could collaborate on these attestations given the very similar focus.
* Nostr is social. Building on nostr, WalletScrutiny might get more visibility, especially if the integration is not disruptive to others.
My question is which nip or nip proposal should I build on? https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/1336/files looks relevant but that's only on the per app level and not on the per artifact level. For example build reproducibility is a property of each binary. Which are the kinds we should use for attestations?
nostr:npub1wf4pufsucer5va8g9p0rj5dnhvfeh6d8w0g6eayaep5dhps6rsgs43dgh9 nostr:npub1l2vyh47mk2p0qlsku7hg0vn29faehy9hy34ygaclpn66ukqp3afqutajft nostr:npub1az9xj85cmxv8e9j9y80lvqp97crsqdu2fpu3srwthd99qfu9qsgstam8y8 #askNostr
Discussion
... and nostr:npub1sy70twa0vadtk8hjs6wt2hmfszduj04tw78ccs3ktmr9u99mfmqsj62srx
On the protocol side of things maybe. I'm not sure if Satlantis is going to be as open as you think as the whole article is not very explicit about this.
Just three quotes and how they ring to me:
> with Nostr, it’s actually possible, for the first time — in a privacy and sovereignty preserving way.
Nostr is very transparent but that is changing. Follows and therefore the social graph is public for now but private follows are a thing already I think and many want to push for more privacy in nostr, so it might be a fading advantage.
> In the same way, value will NOT accrue to the protocol because It’s not supposed to — protocols are more of a commodity. The money is and should be made by those who leverage the protocols for end-user products, apps & services.
Is Satlantis about harnessing the social graph while keeping its user data in a silo or are they working on reviews being public nostr events? Making money will require some exclusivity of something or else, alternative clients will crop up and undercut you. Or what would Satlantis be selling?
> Instead of just “liking” a review, you can tip (zap) it.
This on the other hand sounds clearly like reviews being nostr events.
Wow, I had no idea that private follows are becoming a thing. That kinda sucks. I thought this web-of-trust to unfuck online reviews (and bot spam) sounded like such a great idea.
It is and people certainly will expand the public follows but private options are being explored as people might want more privacy about certain follows but not about others.
I suspect, follows will be private by default in many clients at some point, with some other term like "endorse" to make them public and explicit in the sense of a WoT.
All of the user generated data you see in Satlantis is from Nostr events. This will include reviews (Kind 1985) once we finish implementation and enable them. The only data which isn’t published to Nostr at this point would be some of the metrics for cities. User data is not siloed.