I think it was the eternal battle between perfection and pragmatism. People often say "worse is better" when doing something the "right" way has failed. I think it's usually meant to imply that there's some luck or non-functional advantage allowing the lesser solution to be more successful.
But the literal interpretation is in fact that the "wrong" way was better. Why was that? Is it really luck and better community, or is there something in our blindspot? I like to first look at complexity: things are always more complex than they seem.
If something looks a little more complex, you could easily find it is an order of magnitude more complex, and you just haven't looked into it. That's a lot of work for other people to use. Potentially a lot of additional costs that are invisible to the core group. As you get deep into a problem you can find important things that justify the additional cost to you, but to other people the numbers don't add up.
Which is why I like the sometimes brutal simplicity of nostr. There is room for improvement (keys keys keys), but the core is so simple and cheap to implement that it's very hard to argue. (Which is why non JSON formats NEED to be optional).
But there's plenty of room for distributed protocols. SSL has made centralization easy and fun, and the net has suffered as a result.
#HtP
Meshtastic calls to you
Someone asked me how you know how many sats you have, without a wallet. I told them you paste your pubkey into a service and it can look it up for you.
They said, no how do you *really* look it up? You know, without trusting anyone. And I said ohhh, right. Well, you can look your own key up in the "database". This drive right here has a copy of that, the ...entire... global history of Bitcoin. Right here on this tiny drive.
Damn.
This is Wall Street for GFY nostr:note15jwgy2s62qvnk8ssle70ha7lrn2h8fzv5uk4m5yqdh5ndz55lgjs3ya6u8
Agreed. One of the things that has bothered me about the debate is people's insistence that support for edits and deletions was merely an omission that needed to be corrected. Edits and deletions are censorship. A morally valid form of censorship, perhaps, but from a technical standpoint almost the same.
How long will deletion requests persist on relays? What happens when someone, perhaps specifically waiting for the opportunity, republishes a "deleted" message after the deletion request has been purged?
What about relays that retain "deleted" messages intentionally? Or ONLY publish deleted requests? The friendly use of deletion requests doesn't work in adversarial environments, and you don't get to choose where your data flows. Nostr doesn't have forward secrecy.
Annotations are a better alternative. They solve the friendly case while not pretending to solve the adversarial one. They also keep the required protocol simpler, which leads to greater adoption.
Truth is more limited than Bitcoin
At some point you wonder whether its a mistake
If you voted for bullshit... I do care.
Vote for whomever you like, but do it for good reasons.
And the handshake explained: https://www.windytan.com/2012/11/the-sound-of-dialup-pictured.html
Look at that glorious bandwidth! You've got some quality engineering porn right there.
You still have the same number of sats no matter who sits in a chair.
Sounds like a zap bot: pay any invoices submitted to a URL until the budget expires. Enclose QR code of URL in throwable.
Guess I'm in the right spot
"Ross is free!" solved my feed pruning problem.
Remember when Italian politics seemed absurd?
I'm sure they'll get around to it in the 3rd or 4th term
AI is a catalyst that turns context into value