Do not take the gossip implementation of delegation to mean that I support that alternative. I suspect there is a better way. I haven't looked into it much. It was someone else's PR that I just merged. Delegation is kind-of a pain, but I added an index to make it less costly.
I didn't dive deep enough into delegation myself to have a say about delegation in a technical protocol/ implementation manner.
However nostr:npub1acg6thl5psv62405rljzkj8spesceyfz2c32udakc2ak0dmvfeyse9p35c has implemented delegation into gossip for a long time and I am assuming that users will have the say about using or not using delegation, if clients support it ( nostr:npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z nostr:npub1xtscya34g58tk0z605fvr788k263gsu6cy9x0mhnm87echrgufzsevkk5s ).
Relays will either get paid more by delegated notes, even if the cost is produced at the get/fetch side of other following npubs. Or some relays will just not accept delegated notes and we will see delegation friendly and unfriendly relays. (Is this the way how relays can avoid costs of delegated notes in the first place or are relays helpless currently? )
I assume that individual relays must feel the constrains first, before a protocol or relay implementation adoption will happen. Always has been, hasn't it?
Therfore I propose that *tool creators don't censorship possibilities for users* just because the costs for the network are considered too high at the moment for using a tool.
PV nostr:npub17tyke9lkgxd98ruyeul6wt3pj3s9uxzgp9hxu5tsenjmweue6sqq4y3mgl and thank you for bringing awareness of delegation costs into my field. 🫂
Discussion
No replies yet.