People are absolutely saying we should randomize relay starting lists and start users on “small” relays so
I’m not sure why you aren’t hearing/seeing that - it’s pretty common rhetoric on my feed.
I certainly agree that we need a scalable solution to finding user events in a (reasonably) censorship-resistant fashion.
Yeah, I see it too, but I don't think most of those people know what they're talking about. The four of us who went on CD last week seemed pretty well in agreement about that. I do think some randomization is good, among the top 30 or so relays (Primal is adding this, and it's good). But that's not the same as true randomization across the whole set of available relays, which would be an awful idea for several reasons.
So…can we agree some people are talking about randomizing relay lists now?
nostr:note17qa7as9y4eqksln3rdsmes74y7lv9ua5hcl295cd89sk59dz7h5svza9eh
Haha yes ok you win. I thought Primal was going to be more conservative and base selection on on some quantifiable relay characteristics. A floor of 100 relays is definitely higher than it needs to be, and will put stress on outbox-enabled clients. I think we can still handle it by rotating through connections, but it definitely will be interesting.
