I think many people have vastly different definitions of “decentralized”. When we talk decentralization, we should consider what good balance between cost, convenience and accountability we should apply. Take an average user of the nostr. Let’s say the use Snort, or Primal. The client is owned by one entity, relay (default one) is also owned by the same entity (snort has multiple but has its own too), media is owned by default by the same entities. In one perspective this is not a well decentralized approach by default but it’s OK for majority of the users. With Primal the wallet is technically owned by Strike on iOS, and Snort doesn’t have default (AFAIK). Amethyst or Damus on the other hand, may be considered more decentralized. Damus client, Damus relay (default) with several others, media is hosted by two different entities (NB, nostrimg). Amethyst client, no default self-owned relays (AFAIK), media is nip-96 with a lot of choices. I think that Damus and Amethyst are in good shape for the purposes of decentralization, since they can’t truly manipulate the full user experience.

I guess what I am trying to say is, you don’t have to have distributed and decentralized layers as long as each layer is not under control by the same entity. Alternative becomes more complicated and less accessible, not even talking cost of maintaining one.

#showerthoughts 🐶🐾🫡