Subnostr

On a separate but related note - I think we can expand NIP-50 to offer a lot more optional functions in the search, including one you mentioned.

Isolating results to only one relay (even if NIP-50 relay is an aggregator), negative keywords, wildcards, topics, language, sentiment, nsfw, etc etc.

Obviously I don’t expect every relay to implement these, but even if we only have a handful of aggregators we can query directly, thats at least on the decentralization spectrum compared to all existing social media search.   We should also expect the number of aggregators and search providers to grow with time if nostr succeeds (even if their data become more fragmented).

Mazin 1y ago

One last thing and then I’ll stop harassing you guys, just lots of questions and want to understand.

We DO have common ground here. I think DVMs are useful, particularly for things like translation, text to speech, etc. The more generalized the request can be and the less coupled it is to a relay, the more sense it makes to me to use a DVM. In those instances it’s incredibly valuable to have multiple service providers accessible through a single job request on any client/relay.

When the providers of the data are relays, as in the case of NIP-50, I don’t see why we should bend DVMs to try to fit this use case.

Happy Sunday!

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

hodlbod 1y ago

You as well! I think maybe a part of our disagreement is our vision of how big relays ought ultimately be. I would like there to be many small relays which are cheap to operate and sovereign, but which can delegate advanced functionality to other services. This doesn't make sense for nostr.wine, because you have no problem running those other services. Both visions can coexist, but as a client dev I'd like to access both with the same interface.

But these are just opinions, the proof is in the pudding. I look forward to seeing what you come up with. 🫡