You can use a new pubkey for every post. Itās not a design choice.
Discussion
Itās your choice to use the same pubkey.
Change your NIP-05 verification after every post.
My followers donāt come with me. Neither PMs migrate. I have to restart from scratch every time.
If you want privacy, you canāt have followers follow you through every new public key. It would defeat the purpose of switching public keys in the first place.
There are designs for social networks with encrypted messages (you encrypt, with a different key, to every follower you have individually). Similar to lnurl invoicing requestsā¦
BTW, I did ask fiatjaf to add that feature and allow people to rotate key s in every message. It would be a very simple change. He rejected:Ā https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/126
But they're for different things in Nostr my pubkey is my identity I want all my posts linked to. Its not like bitcoin where I don't want transactions linked.Ā And in the cases where I do want unlinked identities, just generate a new pub key.
What if the default was unliked messages for everybody and only your followers can put them together? This is possible. It was a choice to reuse the public key.
Someone can always fork the code š§š½āš»
You can also use a new account in ETH for every new transaction, but nobody does that. Why? Because identity is tied to the public key.
What is the main reason people donāt want address reuse in Bitcoin?
Address reuse is not prevent by utxo model but some popular optin bip stuff.
I'm not sure to understand your point.
Agree , that why I mentioned ācore valuesā. Bitcoin built the culture to avoid address reuse and tools followed. But that could only be done because bitcoin was already a UTXO design
If it can become a thing in Nostr and people truly want that then it will. Just like it happened with Bitcoin. Bitcoin started with address reuse.
Agree! Thatās why I am pushing for it. :)
I disagree that "no address reuse" is a Bitcoin core value. It's just a practice to preserve privacy.
But we should not forget the purpose. Value transfer or money doesn't benefit greatly by being attached to identity. A messaging system makes more sense due to reputation.
Value transfer doesnāt benefit from an identity? Our entire financial system is designed to associate money and identity.
Exactly... š
Although I said "greatly". It does benefit in some cases, but it's not core. You don't need to give or know identity in order to transact commercially.
Now I re-read your post and I realize you were being sarcastic, right?
That's what happens when one answers in a rush.
You are being KYCed in every non cash transaction you make. You just don't know about it. And finance includes credit cards, loans, app payments, stock purchases, etc. Everything needs your id.
Sure, and that's a problem. However, here we are talking about finance, not value transfer which is a lower layer. For value transfer, like money, identity is not required (even avoided ideally).
Back to the initial point, that's why address reuse makes sense in Bitcoin.
But when talking about a messaging platform or protocol, identity becomes relevant because you might need to know who sent the message, or you might even want others to know you sent the message. And reputation is another thing to consider. All pointing to identity.
These days even lower layers are KYCed. Venmo, cash app, apple pay, they all have your ID. The only thing that doesn't use your id is pure cash, which virtually no one uses anymore.
I like this conversation, but bitcoin address reuse is encouraged to obfuscate your identity or association with UTXO's. In the case of Nostr or any social media the objectie is to associate an identity with messages.
A success point of twitter was its ability to create anon accounts. We can think of identity management as many anon accounts that someone could prove they control "if" they want to.
Correct. The problem of nostr is exactly that there is only one identity, one key. If you move to another key, you have to start from scratch. PMs are resetter, followers need to migrate etc. In the long term, having your life tied to just one identity is dangerous.
But you could always prove you control this other identity by messaging from your original identity.
Not necessarily. You want to disclose to your friends and followers, but you may not want to disclose your identity with the whole world. We are just too used to surveillance to even realize that it's not needed.
well the beauty of what you are describing is the ability to use anon accounts but be able to prove to others that "you" identity of another account controls this other anon account where random strangers may not know this.
you could do this by generating a new nostr priv key and then messaging to followers you want to know proof that you control this other account.
What Cameri said, and also, no need to compare to bitcoin.. that is money, this is social media, a v different cryptographic use case
This is the key, Nostr is for building social networks, and Nostr works.
If you don't like Nostr, you build an alternative, it's that easy, or not so easy.
I found similar criticisms when bitcoin was created, they criticized that it was not scalable, that was already known from the first moment, but hey, it worked, let them say it 13 years later.
I am the first defender of p2p, but we have more than 20 years with p2p networks, Kadmelia is the example, has served as the basis for many other networks including ipfs, but we continue to use centralized services ...
I think the key is to keep it simple and keep it simple and have the clients use some p2p for certain tasks like file sharing.
I donāt really understand why everybody thinks changing keys is a complicated thing. Itās virtually the same protocol, same syntax, same apis. The only difference is post signing ID linkage. And nostr could do both extremely well without increasing complexity at all.