Nostr Web Client

The requirement for paid relay owners to accept moderation reports from unpaying users feels to me like it's overstepping the mark. (Ok, I see now in the NIP it is a SHOULD not a SHALL, this seems more reasonable). Accepting events from unpaid users is a DDOS vector because checking the event kind requires parsing JSON which is relatively expensive for a server. Big relays will have to apply their spam and DDOS filters before checking the event kind. I'm not sure what that means legally. I'm curious what relay owners think about this nostr:npub1xdtducdnjerex88gkg2qk2atsdlqsyxqaag4h05jmcpyspqt30wscmntxy nostr:npub1h72rkut9ljnpdfyrcmw8q9jx52tgn2m8zyg0ehd6z236tz2vmg2sr5k5rt

s3x_SOCIAL 2y ago

I'll change the wording so it's a bit more flexible. That relays who say they support the (optional) NIP must have the _option_ to allow unpaid users to submit moderation reports related to content on the relay. And should have that option on by default, but may give relay owners the option to disable the feature.

My server is DDOS protected. 😁 Hell, even my DNS is DDOS protected. Though DDOS protection only protects so much. It wouldn't stop someone from slowly eating up a lot of database space with lots of events that have garbage stuffed in `content`.

The issue is a legal one. Right now if I have CSAM on my relay I could serve it to an unpaid user but I wouldn't see their report, and hence there would be no way for me to know I have a legal problem.

I have a rather large list of IPs I block that gets updated regularly. It's just part of being a webmaster. I'll add attacks on my relay to the types of things I monitor and block.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

s3x_jay 2y ago

Is this better?

> "For a relay to say it supports this NIP it MUST support the ability for unpaid relay users to submit kind 32123 events that have `vocab` values of "MOD" or "X-MOD", and are related to content on the relay (`e` tag equal to an eventID in the relay database). That ability SHOULD be on by default, but MAY be turned off by the relay webmaster."

Support for NIPs is optional - so not it will only affect relays that want to say they support the NIP…

brugeman 2y ago

Btw just fyi 32123 was used by wayman app by wavlake

s3x_SOCIAL 2y ago

Was or is? There really needs to be a better list of who’s using what.

That said - does it really matter? If the `d` tags aren’t the same they probably won’t affect each other.

That said, it’s cleaner if it’s on its own kind.

I had asked Google for a random number and it gave me 32144. And it made me think 32123 would be better. So I switched. Maybe I’ll go back to 32144.

Matt Lorentz 2y ago

Idk, this doesn't seem better to me, just a wordier way of saying the same thing haha. I think it's better to leave it as you had it, or just remove it altogether. IMO this NIP doesn't need to address achieving legal compliance - NIPS are about the semantic meaning of event data. So while I agree that relay owners SHOULD do this, it seems outside the scope of the spec. At least that's my opinion - don't take it too strongly. You are right, NIPs are all optional so it's not forcing anyone to do anything.