Not really.
Discussion
Why not? It's the same key derivation path as nostr if I'm not mistaken.
Nostr uses a different elliptic curve. Mainline DHT does not support it.
You could technically use the same seed and then make keys on both curves, but this is asking for more trouble than it's worth imo.
Why not make it interoperable?
Because Mainline DHT consists of millions of nodes providing censorship resistance and Nostr has like 20.
Because there are no meaningful advantages to using the secp curve Nostr uses.
Nostr could change to use the same ed curve though, to also use Mainline DHT, but it breaks everything in Nostr, and then people will also realize they don't need the nostr relay model at all, and then they will realize, oh, Pubky already figured all of this out.
Nostrβs model is relay-centric and user-driven, while Pubkyβs is DHT-centric and infrastructure-driven. Both allow for decentralization, but the locus of control β explicit relay choice versus implicit DHT routing β differs fundamentally.
The ease of spinning up relays in Nostr empowers users to shape the networkβs decentralization, provided they take advantage of this flexibility. In Pubky, decentralization is inherent due to the DHT, but user control is more abstracted. Ultimately, both systems benefit from low barriers to node participation, but the practical degree of decentralization depends on how users and operators engage with these options
I'd love to dig deeper but you left me hanging with the invite code, so there's that.
>provided they take advantage of this flexibility
Key caveat there I think.