Replying to Avatar Leo Wandersleb

Then how about not including nostr DM in the clients? Fiatjaf removed DM from branle for that reason. Use other tools for this. Nostr is not for DM.

I suggested a DM nip that would improve the situation and that would work for group chat, too, sort of but I also think nostr might just not be the best tool for encrypted communication. Better improve the public message use-case than to stress client devs with more and more standards that are inferior than other existing tools.
15
Change this if you want 2y ago

Fiatjaf can do whatever he wants lol and he sees things in his own way! And it doesn’t mean that if he did something everyone should follow the same way! I def can in the future encrypted group chats on nostr it just mush happen

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Leo Wandersleb 2y ago

I didn't mean to imply you couldn't do stuff that fiatjaf doesn't like but I would hope that it gets you to stop and think for a second about this angle of the problem.

15
Change this if you want 2y ago

I’m not too technical about encryption but what the problem with implementing it on here ?

Avatar
Leo Wandersleb 2y ago

Relays can't filter by content what is encrypted. So if you remove all the meta data including the sender, you won't know who could even detect spam in the message. Denial of service spam could post to channels that don't exist so to say and relays would store the garbage?

This content would be bound to relays that get paid for its storage probably by the content's author, which is not automatically wrong but still a few steps away from where we are so far.

Avatar
hodlbod 2y ago

POW/paid/personal relays would all be partial solutions to this problem.