Global Feed Post Login
Replying to Avatar jb55

Im ok with centralized banning of spammers on public relays. Hopefully this is the censorship we can all get behind. That and banning cp on media hosts.

I’m ok with coordinated engineering efforts to censor specific things while keeping the network censorship resistant for legitimate activity. Bitcoin is censorship resistant but still “censors” certain types of spam at the p2p layer so everyone can actually use the system for its intended purpose.

Bitcoin is even more extreme, these censorship rules (standardness rules) are centralized and decided by a few people. I’m not even suggesting that, i’m just suggesting a reputation based approach that relays can tap into or not.

Spam does not deserve the same censorship resistance properties as legitimate activity. nostr:note1czywrqx87muljstlez0r4c8075ddsukxv0pmv6wvcrfq3lfqtrnqy2r2l2

Avatar
Judge Hardcase 1y ago

I think 'centralized' banning is a bit of a misnomer if relays are independently choosing to ban (spam or otherwise). Even if every single relay happens to be independently making the same choice to ban based on the same criteria, the choice to ban or not is still decentralized.

*also, with regard to relays that are neither owned nor operated by the public, the term 'public relays' may be a bit misleading in the context of censorship.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.