Nostr Web Client

as fiatjaf would say, no 'group' is truly private, the larger it is, the less private it is.

so im not quite sure what youre wanting but, what does the overloaded term 'private' mean in the context you are looking for?

if you can answer this, then i can suggest things.. but i find this important point, if not understood is a source of much nostr confusion.

Niel Liesmons 9mo ago

1) Private = generally nothing is publicly readable

2) Having your own relay + server should be incentivized but not required

3) It needs to be able to be a private group, not just a private chat, where every content type can have their own criteria for how long they can be accessed and who can publish them.

4) Leaking any key (except for maybe the groups key pair) should not be a significant problem

5) Ideally, if I share the group ID, you can only see anything about the group if that group lets you. (but I'm fine if that's a feature for the run-your-own-server crowd)

...

I can see a way of doing all of this with MLS, but it introduces so much complexity :hot:

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

cloud fodder 9mo ago

id suggest doing some real brainstorming on this. i will too. if you already went directly to "we want what mls does" you have to realize its cutting edge cryptography and im not aware of *any app where it is in use because it is do new.

signal, simplex etc etc, they ALL use the tried and true 'unscaleable' ways, much like nip17. good for small group, not good for large.

so... there are some middle grounds i think, but, all the fancy stuff like forward secrecy, or users joining the chat and being unable to see the history and stuff like this, i think may be far fetched and possibly not even wanted. (many complain they cant see the history, discord doesnt do this, do you consider discord a private chat? many do.

this is why its worth, thinking further.. take the time.

Niel Liesmons 9mo ago

Yes :110percent:

cloud fodder 9mo ago

also, in an effort to describe my thought patterns here. nip42 auth, and a relay, .. can control read access to a relay. maintain a list of people that can do this, if they take and republish all the notes.. then what? is it a problem?

if so, then maybe people dont want to use their 'main key' in the group, for plausable deniability, right?

the thing about nostr that is different, is the signatures and the portability. so privacy in a sense, is more scary because.. you signed an artifact that is portable and have to trust your group not to leak it.

this is where atlas shrugs and im not sure what it all means.. do we just stop publishing signatures or some other tricks? maybe. but then trust inside the group falls to the relay or community admin.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 9mo ago

tombstones are your friend

they identify the content, without revealing the content, and specify that the content is DED

and further, step outside of the dumb relay mindset, and think about a chanserv bot for this situation. it can keep tombstones of deleted data for a long time, they are not big data compared to what they refer to, and nobody can republish them

#realy already uses tombstones... i haven't written the GC for it yet but they already have timestamps

RIP

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 9mo ago

yeah, that's why i say the old IRC model is the best, because you can set very fine grained policy on retention and access control and even things like users being able to block sending events to users they don't want to see it specifically, or whitelist where you make a set difference of their whitelist versus their blocklist and the chanserv will only deliver events according to the author's preferences

i have been thinking about these subjects for a long time since i started using IRC in 2003