Static documentation isn't necessary, it's true, but it's useful marketing material or a basis for discussion.

Nostr has a built-in incentive for people to use other people's events, so that they can capture part of the same audience.

An open protocol is a novel idea whose time has come. We're just embracing it.

I basically agree, but I don't think people are spending the necessary time on making sure consensus works. Fragmentation is ok, but the target is maximum interoperability, not maximum fragmentation. Everyone making up their own specs is an unbalanced approach, just as running everything through one permissioned source is unbalanced. Of the two, I personally prefer the github model, because it's proven to work, while the bizarre bazar is untested. But I'm willing to participate in experimentation with a middle ground.

The forest did.

This is all by design in a decentralized, permissionless infrastructure. The github nips repo works for a circle of developers, of which many take influence, and would like to contribute but doing so on a permissioned platform is getting annoying.

There is nothing wrong using it as the defacto repository or a model for "The Nostr" local to everyone that wants to take influence. The problem is that nostr is too good and using any other system is starting to get painful (damn you developers! ✊).

Just let the ideas compete with other specs. Make a whitelist relay where you and others curate and incubate the ideas. Others could fork on their own relays, but no one needs to listen - unless it actually makes sense for the client.

Ultimately, its a public announcement of "i'm using this spec" and you don't need to leave nostr to be part of the "official" conversation.

There is no such thing as a definitive NIP.

I'm not asking them to do anything. That's my point. They're the ones upset that major spec writers are starting to ignore the repo and document on the wiki, instead.

We like the wiki better. 🤷‍♀️

I have no idea why anyone finds this hard to believe.

Nostr > GitHub

Only thing that bothers me is that we've always had it. FIDO. But now (arguably) big tech funded the name change to "PassKey" and required platform authenticators and device information, aka the zero privacy version of WebAuthN

Needs to be tamper resistant

Yeah I’m just thinking of the mint I would feel comfortable using (but i run my own nodes so I don’t personally feel like I would ever use one)

If we don’t think about these things we risk rebuilding the existing systems. I don’t buy the argument that it’s all small amounts so it doesn’t matter. It’s small amounts until it isn’t.

I got into bitcoin for the sovereignty and self custody aspects, ecash is really cool as a technology but feels bad to push it to wider adoption. Feels like we are just giving up on self custody. I would like to see more progress on improving L1 script so we don’t have to go the ecash route.

Yes, nip05 better than DID, but they have big businesses pitching key management. Marketing is powerful.

DWN is a fairly poor way to do personal storage. But I guess it could be used with nostr.

FAR better to use regular cloud with nip-98, or course. Which is mature, works, and scales.

Yes, they are trying to use DIDs, sidetrees, and the w3c stack. Jack is behind it so might not compete too much, but will have good funding. They have a very complex spec with a few mistakes. But most of it is OK, and boils down to typed JSON.

It offers key rotation, which nostr doesnt have. And personal storage which nostr doesnt have either.

Personal storage will be better then keeping stuff on relays, because relays dont have any guarantee to store things.

Here's an #asknostr for today as I finish up a round of research. I've already looked into this a lot myself but it's ever-changing and there are people way deeper than me into this.

Frictions and risks related to key management are often cited by critics as one of Nostr's limitations. You lose your key, and you lose your identity. Plugging your key into a bunch of different apps is not ideal, since the more you do, the bigger the potential attack surface is for a leak.

Restricting your usage to a couple apps or browser extensions, and using them to sign for other applications, seems to be the best method so far for minimizing the attack surface.

Looking beyond that, what sorts of protocol updates or app services are ideal to help minimize the frictions and risks of key management while keeping the protocol itself super simple as it is?

starting a fractional reserve ecash mint as a side hustle