Bitcoin was nothing like that when it was as early as Nostr is now.

The very people proposing it were skeptical of it, willing to hear about all possible limitations etc — and it was a breakthrough obvious to anyone who did any research around the idea of digital cash. Nostr obviously has no big breakthrough in it — there’s not even any attempt to make arguments in that direction— only about how it changes everything, assuming it solves the problem of censorship.

It reminds me not of Bitcoin, but of the way newborn altcoins are shilled with wild assertions and zero research to back it.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I was referring to the fact that no single part was new, but rather a new combination of older things.

So you're saying this combination exists elsewhere/ has existed before in a similar form and will become more centralised because it just can't scale (to include everyone in the world being easily discoverable by one another on the same relay) without massive resources.

I don't think that's what it's supposed to be though. I think we're fine with niche relays.

Bitcoin’s genesis occurred in a very different time, and was nurtured and developed by individuals who had a deep understanding of the tech involved.

Imagine if bitcoin was discovered now. Would it take the same path? Who knows?

I’m thankful for devs like yourself, who take a contrarian view, and take the to educate and inform people like myself, who have a deep desire to see change but lack the deep technical knowledge to truly assess if this time is different.