Nostr Web Client

The grapevine will use two dimensions to define a context: an action and a category. Your grapevine will curate actions and categories as lists and will arrange them into hierarchies, so trust can be inherited down the hierarchy.

A follow in nostr would be represented by the grapevine by an attestation that translates loosely: I trust you to curate my nostr feed in the category of everything. If I really like your curation of topic X but not topic Y, I can attest accordingly, but no need for me to dig into subcategories if I don’t want to.

Any given attestation can be made public or kept private, at your discretion.

Your follows list is already public. So yes, you are willing to put at least some of it out there.

Mike Dilger ☑️ 1y ago

But my follow list is becoming private. Many of my follows you cannot see (encrypted contents).

I'm not against this idea, I'm just poking holes because that's what I'm good at - finding problems.

But I like that it is a grassroots ground-up way of solving a problem that big companies were controlling us with.

I'm not sure trust is transitive. In many cases it certainly isn't. How do you solve that? If A trusts B with a secret, and B trusts C with a secret, that doesn't mean A trusts C with a secret. In fact, that is how secrets get leaked all the damn time. Or I follow Ben, and Ben likes the keto diet. But I *hate* the keto diet. My following of him says nothing about my view on his diet.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

david 1y ago

These are all good points. Which is why the big picture is that the entire protocol will ultimately be curated by your grapevine. Not at first, but eventually. Every single aspect of the protocol can be replaced with something better. As many different algos for as many different contexts as you need.

The tapestry protocol, as written by me (before your grapevine takes over from me), cannot and will not be perfect. It only has to be good enough to get to the point where it can be handed off.

What constitutes “good enough”? It needs to be capable of a handful of quasi-complicated things, and transitivity is definitely one of them. I’m not an expert in all things, and I can’t hand-pick the experts in all things, but if I can pick the people who pick the people who pick the people etc who are experts in some particular thing, then i can delegate anything and everything to a small handful of people who will probably be pretty good choices for the topic in question. And if it’s not controversial, my grapevine and your grapevine will probably settle on the same small handful of people who know and care about the topic in question. Or at least their opinions will likely overlap. I’m thinking about niche questions about our digital tools of communication, like whether a nostr note timestamp should use created_at or createdAt. No one really cares, provided we’re all on the same page, and the grapevine will usually get us all on the same page. (Unless there is controversy, which there isn’t in most cases.)

Other than transitivity, management of category trees by my grapevine is another one of the quasi-complicated but necessary things, I think. Which is why that’s also in the tapestry protocol, and goes by the acronym DCoG: decentralized curation of graphs.

david 1y ago

On the topic of privacy: the general idea is going to be that you will have the ability to reveal exactly what you want, to whom, and under what circumstances you choose. You already have that ability, in theory. But the grapevine will give you tools to fine-tune your choices. And you won’t have to publish your trust list in the same sense that you don’t have to publish your follows list. You may choose to give your follows list to a relay for the sake of performance, but that’s a tradeoff you can decide whether to make.