Sorry, not suggesting you did anything wrong, nostr developers just need to start working together more on this complex/fundamental stuff
Discussion
He had some trauma on verbal communication about his thoughts on nostr…
I am not offended and the point of hacking ahead is to understand the problem space. There are many features that I have discussed with nostr:npub14kcnaaguwqww5cac9m2p755g8z0ugpg7zzcnczll5al86cwfj67sjk2chk but we don’t have enough engineering power to implement just yet.
Since group chat is a feature that we will implement anyway, at least from my perspective, it’s more prioritized to get the common UX right before finalizing any particular implementation.
I also need to refactor the code base to a state that implementing group chat is possible.
So even if Blowater ends up throwing away all current implementation, the effort is not wasted.
Good to hear, keep me in the loop as you put together a standard, hammering groups out is my top priority
It was 4am yesterday and my brain was dead. Looking back at the conversation, we (you and me and other devs) should definitely work together. But we need to have a rough consensus about what it means to be working together. NIP discussion, codebase etc.
But even before any of these material outputs, we need to figure out what each client dev is trying to do at the first place.
We need to figure out the product difference and similarity among clients. Sometimes, one client, Blowater for instance, might just have very different design goals.
But I can't be certain because we never discussed our design goal, product goal and potentially business goals.
Therefore, 2 suggestions:
1. We should definitely have an in-depth disussion in Tokyo.
2. We should (or mostly I shoud) engage in more public discussions about product designs.
Regarding feature richness, you are right. The current state of Blowater's GM is poor and it's intentional.
The core design is extensible enough to implement many useful and interesting or even weird features on top of it. But in terms of user experience research, I would like to be conservative and only let users to do minimal features at first. Once we have a solid foundation, we will be more confident to implement more features, progressively.
And I firmly believe that Release Small & Release Fast is a superior approach than a longer up-front design circle.
For sure, excited to hear you're going to be there!
I have a different design philosophy I think, which is to create robust abstractions and then limit them at the application layer. This bites me sometimes, but if there's follow through I think it works.
So nip 87 is "the kitchen sink plus some other stuff", but in practice only some parts will be supported (similar to the protocol itself). This means that you get greater interoperability, because multiple features work based on the same abstractions.
The flipside of course is that if you overload an abstraction, you have contention over semantics. But nostr's kinds basically solves that problem and as far as I understand the problem we need only two kinds of encrypted messaging support in nostr: one-to-one messages (scalable to groups using duplicate messages), and many-to-many messages (scalable using a shared key).
Anything in addition to those (moderation, administration, relay selection) can be rolled into either abstraction as an independent component, I think. Of course, my entire approach may change, as I shift back to exploring how relays can solve some group stuff on their own, without encrypted channels.
Yes, the main difference is the design philosophy here.
The reason I really like & respect nostr:nprofile1qqsf03c2gsmx5ef4c9zmxvlew04gdh7u94afnknp33qvv3c94kvwxgspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3xamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7tpvfkx2tn0wfnszxmhwden5te0vd58y6tnw3cxjmrv9ehx7um5wgcjucm0d5w28rcn is that he will criticize you with real reasons and yet he keeps the human side and say "sorry" afterwards.
I was not even offended by the criticism because good criticism inspires me and even enlightens me. Plus the criticism is about my work instead of personal.
This is a virtue that's lost in many people, even for those who are well educated with a degree.
Just several hours ago, I was criticized by someone for a joke I didn't even say to her (instead, to another dude) solely for her ignorance of humour and bad emotional control. Last month, I was also criticized (or rather insulted) by some PhD dude solely because my action was not aligned with his belief & value systems. But I did not even harm him.
A strong rational critism won't hurt me, yet a weak personal attack just breaks my heart (a little bit).
These kind of people will never admit they were wrong. If facts came out, they would just ignore facts and attach you personally. Actually, they just attack you personally from the beginning.
Sometimes it's not even about right or wrong, it's about being human and have empathy.
Nostr platform, at least now, has been the best platform in terms of public social behaviors of human being. We are free & strong here, but we are not chaotic assholes.
The fiat system does not only fuck your money, it also fucks your mind. It traps you in this rat race mentality that you easily make other people your imaginary enermies. Because the fiat system makes you weak so that you don't even dare to see & admit the real enermy because the real enermy is strong and will punish you. Criticising another person & attacking their humanity might make you feel good, but it will never solve your life problems. Even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat. I don't race with rat.
tbh all my Christian friends are super nice. People stop me on the street and ask me : do you believe in god doesn’t count
#Friend I disagree with you. Not all Christians are good! Religion doesn’t really tell if this person is good or not.
Yes, religions should not be the universal passport to get by all situations. It’s just one aspect of the person. But on the other hand, I actually don’t personally know many religious people. So I’m curious.