Replying to Avatar Uxellodunum

That's where the distinctions lie - Applications vs Protocols.

I think protocol interoperability is a stretch-goal once at least two such protocols stabilise their respectively, sufficiently, large userbases and have sufficiently different things to offer - The reason I don't expect this to happen (at least not anytime soon) is because developers will eventually go where the incentives are better for them and will build there, making "jumping ship for a different experience" moot, because it'll likely already be there.

As for whether it'll be #nostr, that remains to be seen. But I believe out of the current such protocols, it has the best chance.

It's a well known fact that Bitcoiners have made nostr their home. #Bitcoin is the most decentralised protocol network on the planet, and that was a happy accident, it won't happen again. Given this, most Bitcoin enthusiasts are likely to run a Bitcoin node and will eventually encounter nostr. If one runs a Bitcoin #node, and knows about nostr, they'll also be more likely to running a nostr #relay. The crux is nostr doesn't require that level of decentralisation simply due to a lack of trust necessary against relays in the first place, and yet (perhaps ironically) has the best chance of reaching it. Which in this case won't be an accident.
42
kripcat.eth 2y ago

Interesting take. Obviously for Bitcoin as a hard money maximum decentralisation is very important.

But for social media is maximum decentralisation that important? What people want (or perhaps what people should want) is to have sovereignty over their data and in doing so eliminate bad incentivises for companies to keep people using the platform by whatever means necessary; even if it fractures our collective agreement on what is real and what is not.

Farcaster claims to be “sufficiently decentralised” (I haven’t used Farcaster btw). Mastadon is less decentralised than Nostr through it’s instances, but much more than Twitter or Threads Couldn’t that level of decentralisation be enough to achieve the goal?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Uxellodunum 2y ago

I agree, and is why I suggested the crux of nostr's decentralisation potential is exactly that - It doesn't need Bitcoin's level of decentralisation, and yet might get close.

Even though you don't need it, the more decentralised it is, the more resistant it is to censorship, and the more powerful personal data sovereignty becomes - There is no real disadvantage here.

You're right in that Mastodon's level of decentralisation is likely to be sufficient for #nostr (which it has already surpassed) - The issue between the two though isn't the level of #decentralisation, but rather the level of data sovereignty, as you suggest.

I ran a #Mastodon server, and saw the problems right away - Unless you run your own server, you have no real data sovereignty.

Compare that to simply keeping hold of a private key (that can be kept or potentially even remembered) that can be connected to any relay at any point in time to pull back your info - Much closer to Bitcoin's way of doing things. Your data isn't in that private key, it's unlocked by it, and lives privately amongst an ever-increasing number of global nodes.

I think as a protocol, nostr already hits all the boxes - At this time it's about building the applications and experiences people want on top of it. The network effect has been clear in just a few months.