I agree, and is why I suggested the crux of nostr's decentralisation potential is exactly that - It doesn't need Bitcoin's level of decentralisation, and yet might get close.

Even though you don't need it, the more decentralised it is, the more resistant it is to censorship, and the more powerful personal data sovereignty becomes - There is no real disadvantage here.

You're right in that Mastodon's level of decentralisation is likely to be sufficient for #nostr (which it has already surpassed) - The issue between the two though isn't the level of #decentralisation, but rather the level of data sovereignty, as you suggest.

I ran a #Mastodon server, and saw the problems right away - Unless you run your own server, you have no real data sovereignty.

Compare that to simply keeping hold of a private key (that can be kept or potentially even remembered) that can be connected to any relay at any point in time to pull back your info - Much closer to Bitcoin's way of doing things. Your data isn't in that private key, it's unlocked by it, and lives privately amongst an ever-increasing number of global nodes.

I think as a protocol, nostr already hits all the boxes - At this time it's about building the applications and experiences people want on top of it. The network effect has been clear in just a few months.