I am working on a chat system too, but I need other things in place first.
I see it the other way round. It's not a consensus system for pubsub. It's a pubsub system for consensus. Imagine global conensus, turing complete, infinite use cases, strong privacy, double spend protection, with a social aspect, and realtime updates.
That's what timechain + nostr gives you.
It's timechain + nostr. Not nostr + timechain. Hint: always has been.
nonsense
anyhow, i've been on record for a long time about how the bitcoin p2p network could use something better than the ad-hock rambling propagation pattern than it has, in order to create an intermediate staging consensus, a mempool consensus, i think i first started talking about it a year ago maybe
nostr protocol can do such a thing but it's overkill and it isn't a consensus it's just a propagation mechanism
https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.03291
this is much more like a possible thing to augment the mempool into an intermediate consensus
Well this is another different idea. But it seems fine in principle. Nostr could do checkpointing, for example. Why not.
An important aspect of bitcoin is that the emission was a level playing field. That has taken 15 years of track record, and millons of proofs. We are bout 96% done.
After emitting the coins fairly and as a level playing field, much of the hard work of consensus is done, the emission part. What remains is a robust ordering system. It is possible to innovate in that space, the harder thing would be to get universial consensus.
you need to seriously study distributed systems, i mean badly, i'm not continuing this conversation, you are throwing out every single naive idea that i had 10 years ago that doesn't work
What does work then? Show, dont tell.
if such a thing existed we would be talking about it, i never claimed to have the solution i just said that none of these things make one
Then it's just an appeal to authority from someone that has neither designed, built or used such a system, saying that something cant be done. Thanks for your thoughts, but we can agree to differ on that one.
