What's more convincing?
🅰️ 21 users you follow trust this app
🅱️ 5 apps you value trust this app
Discussion
Why not: delegate trust from “apps” to “app dev X” to more closely resemble real life relationships.
First I wrote "the builders of 5 apps you zapped a significant amount verified this app" 😹
So yes, absolutely!
😅
How about: Ben, Calle, Will, Vitor etc..
At scale they will not be signing apps with their personal accounts.
Only small and hobby devs might do that.
And mostly, I don't want people to have to know who is behind an app.
You are right! Granted on day one most nostr folks know of each other
Created an app organization placeholder ticket in anticipation of:
1) more than one team member per app.
2) multi-sig release signatures
do apps have opinions? Maybe
They will if they can make money by verifying + vouching for other apps
I think it's devs that have opinions, like
Craig Raw follows app X.
or "generics are awesome" or "objects are the only way to architect application data" or "rust's memory management is better than a full GC" 🤡
plenty of retarded opinions out there
My question is about verification of aspects of the code, not about a literal opinion/review of the app.
It can be both builders or llm's doing the computation for that.
well, that's nothing new. App stored normally verify the code and provide the opinion showing what's allowed in the app store and what is not
This is dangerously close to advertising
If nostr succeeds there will eventually be advertising. Not because it is a necessary good but simply because advertisers follow attention, and people who attract attention will follow money. Not all, but money does free up time to do more attention grabbing. I waffle on whether it makes sense to build in advertising models to begin with so users have as much control as we can give them. In any case nostr should make it impossible to have unskippable ads.
This is true
Wait till you realize that Nostr makes it possible to skip ALL ads ANYWHERE.
Not really. I could introduce an encrypted VoD event type, that all major studios support. I split my videos into sections and refuse to give up the key till 30 seconds after you download an ad. Granted you could then make a Nostr client that downloads the ads ahead of time and skips them. Then I make sure not to send the ad until the correct time has elapsed.
Next you cache the content but then I DMCA you. Next I have signed clients that promise not to let you copy the content and we are right back where we started.
People will download the signed clients because they don't care about anything other than whether they can watch Lonely Wives of Svalbard or not.
Embrace, extend, extinguish still works.
The only way to prevent that is to make it unnecessary and inconvenient. If creators have a way to monetize content in a protected way they won't be inclined to sign on to some anti-priacy racket.
I don't actually have a good answer to this. I hate ads, subscriptions, and paywalls. My opinion might change if we really do solve the micro transaction problem via crypto.
Thanks for this breakdown!
This is from the perspective of 1 user though.
Once someone payed and has access to that video, they can upload it on Nostr anonymously and no one can take it down. You can block it on your client but not on others.
Even if you somehow add an ID every time you send out the video to someone, they can still record it or remove that ID.
Major studios don't matter and if they focus on paywalling they will not be major for that long. The cost of protecting copyrights on an open protocol is too high.
DRM is a stupid, invasive business anyway, i refuse to run it because on firefox browser it blocks screencap of the region of my browser even when the visual part of the media is not currently being painted on screen - the DRM in chrome is selective and only interferes where the painting is going on
but just because i can streamcap from a streaming service (think like youtube or spotify) that doesn't diminish the utility of being able to access their entire catalog freely, nor the possibility of paying for higher bandwidth or even flac/alac downloads of tracks they host
you completely miss the point of what a "streaming media service" is all about if you think it's not profitable in the absence of copyright
i will fight you on this forever, i've been anti copyright and anti DRM since i knew what either of those things were, and they don't exclude profitable streaming or content delivery services on subscriptions
GOG is still around, so is HumbleBundle, and Steam's dial home DRM has the ability to capture things and many bypasses to enable playing content without using their service... yet they are still viable too
Please do, helps my thinking a lot 🙏
I agree that a "streaming media service" can still be very profitable without copyrights!
Especially with a focus on high quality and speed.
It's the subscription part I'm questioning.
Why wouldn't prepaid credits be superior in a free market?
pay per use versus pay per time?
the ol' micropayment cognitive burden thing, it's just more complicated to keep track of and the deployment of it that is user friendly is also more complicated, like, how do you get around having to show the user their balance somewhere visibly all the time? green dot that turns orange maybe?
simply getting a DM warning that your sub is about due to pay is much simpler
No, I mean: Paying for 21 movie credits vs Paying for a monthly Netflix subscription
it's just the need to make the remaining credit visible in the interface and all the pipes needed for that
people prefer a schedule over an allowance, it's easier to budget for, the downside is the provider must do a bit of actuarial calculation to allow a wide variance of actual usage
but i would use a service that has a credits remaining display in the interface, i like the principle of the simplified accounting
With Nostr and Ecash that interface can be universal (without giving in on privacy) and the UX can be superb.
Imagine buying a pack of 21 Zapflix movie tokens (that you self custody).
You can see and manage these tokens in any app you give access, along with all your other tokens (by category etc).
You can sell these tokens to anyone,at any time, at any price.
it's just waiting for a client and accounting system to happen, basically
Even vendors probably prefer this. Unleashed Chat would never go for subs, for a reason.
Keeping it at the user level is way worse. That's like Robert Breedlove recommending or following Swan Bitcoin's app. How helpful is that if he's not into software?
I care about verification, about "Is this app safe to use?", about "Does it only do NIP-49 key encryption and nothing else with my key?".
Builders (or specialized DVM's) actually have the skills for this. They will not do this for free, but anyone can pay them (even in the open). And their verification can verified and they have a looooot to lose.
FOSS also helps here in bringing a level of transparency you'll never have with users.
Seems like the same problem with apps as with users. Just because I "trust" an app doesn't mean it's qualified to recommend any other app. Neither Breedlove nor Coracle should be trusted to recommend a hardware wallet, but I would trust Wallet Scrutiny or Odell. The difference is that while businesses have more resources to make good recommendations, they also have more perverse incentives to choose recommendations that make them money.
That's why I like the idea of showing the list of people that you know that endorse/follow the target (app, podcast, mint...)
Among those people, maybe you'll find the developers you trust, maybe you'll find the podcasters you trust, depending on the use case.
The alternative is to build specified competency/recommendation events for each relevant topic/category, but who chooses the categories?
Yeah, that's the real sticky question
True.
Ideally there's a separate market of Verifier services (payed by user or builder). I just think it's smart to bootstrap that market from the dev side and not from "which users follow what apps".
It's like buying a new car and letting a mechanic that you trust do check up on it's quality.
app devs have opinions, as do architects and project managers and whoever assigns the task (CEO/CTO)
definitely there can be trust ratings on apps... if more apps tag their events with the app identifier we will start to see which apps are more trusted
nostr:npub1jlrs53pkdfjnts29kveljul2sm0actt6n8dxrrzqcersttvcuv3qdjynqn has been a pioneer with this, IMO it should be standard (remember "sent from twitter mobile" and "sent from twitter ios" and such things?)
That depends on the app. Things for interoperable utility like a signer, yeah I'd trust the apps. Something more for fun or work, I'd more likely trust the users.