Now, we aren't on the receiving end of some hidden algorithm, we have a marketplace of clients and relays. Some will be exclusive with their access to certain users, or notes. Relays are gatekeepers to entire ecosystems.
With all the spam that is now quickly starting to show up, I'm assuming we're all going to gravitate towards reading only from pay-to-write or reputation-based relays? The only friction against spam is money, time wasted, or some kind of relay-side reputation score, based on write frequency, content repetition, etc.
I'm technically naive here, but maybe users creating/buying NFT's for themselves should pick the relay fee, and for as long as the transaction (RBF) isn't confirmed, the "bid" for that NFT is still open, and someone can come along with a better relay fee to replace and close it off sooner?
You can put any block height there, at any time, it's just text. It's like me sending you a photo of myself as I am right now, only I'm holding a newspaper that was printed 14 years ago, and telling you the photo is 14 years old.
You need some kind of external party/method that allows you to sign your note with the current block height, in a way that isn't falsifiable. A Bitcoin node would probably have to participate. You send your note, a node embeds the block-height somehow or co-signs, something like that, I'm not knowledgeable enough. 😂
Make sense?
Isn't this a bit pointless unless you use some kind of service/method that can prove the block height at the time of the note?
PS: This note was delayed by 14 years
[1]
I see ordinals/inscriptions are leaning into what's acceptable to store on-chain. This will not end well. https://ordinals.com/inscriptions/105154
What are the implications that you're worried about specifically? Out of curiosity. I can think of transactions being excluded, either because of their source, destination, type, or content. Maybe mining "too many" empty blocks. Ultimately only delaying transactions. But this would just lead to fee swell and losing fees to competitors - miners would be incentivized to switch if pools became exclusionary.
What about a back-end delay on pushing likes (for eg) to give the opportunity to undo?
Exactly, hosting dodgy content on Bitcoin turns full node operators into distributors, putting them at risk, and justifies crusades against the network and its participants. Also increases the likelihood of maxing out and losing smaller nodes. Hoping my understanding is naive.
First day on Nostr, thought the LN address was enough, assuming I have to fill out LNURL as well? In any case, thanks!
lnbc50u1p37cyqcpp5g6l64c204ma0hpceg662jyzdwd7pfrjee3lwprsjau88rqj94pxsdpv2phhwetjv4jzqcneypqyc6t8dp6xu6twva2xjuzzda6qcqzpgxqyz5vqsp5h78t5jsmjyhfk50l5d40edwpqcamtwjnted9tvpa0vfm43gttvwq9qyyssqqur355aua3fqxrqypjcld80cf0azq2kfw08sqy7lhzvvxfaqvs2qsl854lnjhqs3gtchhaky6z9h693gavvjh7d4urtcmvj6c67da7qp5yrx32
