Yeah I donāt like that.
This also means if I post my nostr.build. Then kill the link, Primal already cached my image and will probably continue to serve it to people, although I deleted it.
I understand that everything on the internet is saved forever. But I donāt want the URL to go to nostr.build anymore.
Nobody can stop them from doing what they are doing but if you are a user of primal how can you trust what you see?
Advocating for and or using primal is cringe af.
Yup. I never enjoyed the experience on primal.
We need to shame these primal influencers for bad Nostr etiquette
Why is okay to talk shit about X for bad policies but not Primal?
The double Bitcoin standard
Can you explain a bit more about how you say Primal changes user notes?
I did a test just now, publishing an image that was uploaded to nostr:npub1nxy4qpqnld6kmpphjykvx2lqwvxmuxluddwjamm4nc29ds3elyzsm5avr7 but pasting the URL into a note on Primal.
When I viewed the source of the published note, Primal had not changed the location of my image.
Help me understand what the problem is.
They are displaying a āprimal thumbnailā and once you click on the media it directs to the original file. nostr:note179eu4er5nwde857484ewk99f5xhw766qvxtj5tlz8a8daq2u95gquaqfzt
OK, so itās a CDN that caches a smaller display version for scrolling the feed faster, but the original note is unchanged. Iām not seeing how this is an intentionally malicious attack against Nostr, but it is definitely cause for concern that one might choose to delete an image from the source, such as nostr.build, but the cached version stays live.
What happens when the server is hacked and shows porn or worse for every media image on their server š¤·āāļø
Itās poor functionality at best. And Itās mis representation of what the user intended to be posted.
Thatās a valid point.
Iāve honestly just been trying to put into context for myself the arguments for and against. When I say Iām against it the primal army just says cuz itās faster and Iām retarded. But itās seriously starting to feel like and issues. (Or it will be one day).
But whatās to prevent any media host you use from changing the source image from the URL?
I asked this yesterday and itās above my technical understanding. Nostr build could be attacked or go rogue. However, the way they implemented blossom protects that. There are mirrors that have hashed the media and itāll go to those mirrors to retrieve it. Primal also implemented blossom. So the issue is the cdn thing. Which seems like it is really only a risk to primalās business. Maybe Iām wrong about that though š¤·āāļø
As I explained to mahdood yesterday, Nostr.build requires you to sign every upload/ event. If Nostr.build got hacked they donāt have your keys and cannot change your content.
Primal is centralizing users content and displaying their screenshots in the name of speed instead of fetching your content from relays.
People will leave primal and go to a different client. Will said this the other day
nostr:note15klxt0vek7klcgal47uv506v7lvfe8pkzngjm0v2q4awj5c5yp0qyl3cra
This is currently my view. Is it bad practice? Probably.
Is it malicious? Are they trying to attack nostr or intentionally harm users? Thatās a big claim that Iām not willing to make at this moment.
Time will tell. If primal goes down or gets attacked and the images get fucked up, they will have to scramble to try and fix it before losing most of their users. The market will correct itself and punish them if they face that type of attack. People will leave primal and go to something else like damus.
On a free and open protocol, just like on a free and open market, the successes and failures of these clients is an overall win for the protocol. It sends a signal to everyone about what works and what doesnāt.
Is it the same argument for Microsoft, Google, Apple, AOL, Dropbox, hosting providers, image hosts?
If so, I respect you for holding ground.
But the scale of the issue needs to be agreed.
They should be responsible for conceding the tradeoff involves a sacrifice of certainty, sovereignty, debatably, they are doing that already. Users should be aware of the sacrifice. Debatably you need to do what you are doing because their actions aren't sufficient to ensure that they are.
On the other side, you should be responsible for conceding that you are in the minority opinion. But arguing a principled position. It should be Agreed by both sides that your position is technically right! Your argument should be able to be focused on the fact that you believe those trade offs to be misguided.
And the minority position should have more respect than it does. All ideas begin there.
Then we can decide how cringe that is. I mean watching CNN at the airport is one thing but subscribing to Don lemon's fit bit is something else.
