You’re in for a surprise! The Nostr 2.0 framework we’re working on will let Nostr nodes host decentralized websites, beyond hosting data for native apps like Damus.
We’ll need DIDs to function as decentralized domains to avoid corporately controlled domains. This is how our Nostr GitHub replacement will work. 💜
We’ve been working on the project since before #[3] started the bounty. His large bounty is exciting, but what we want most is to replace Web3 once and for all.
DIDs are bottom-up… they are stored as a hash within a single bitcoin transaction.
DIDs could replace .com domains with decentralized domains not controlled by corporations.
These decentralized domains (DIDs) will be controlled by your bitcoin private keys!
ION Verifiable Credentials (VCs) are an optional KYC component of DIDs that are more top-down, like you said.
Good news is you don’t need to make a VC to make a DID domain: VCs are entirely optional.
VCs are why DIDs get a bad wrap… DIDs alone, without VCs, are securely decentralized.⚡️
Pointless LARPing… no need to create unnecessary costs.
We want high security with a low barrier to entry.
Users aren’t meant to do proof-of-work… indeed, that is not a viable defense strategy like Adam Back originally intended due to botnets et al.
The ingenious innovation was when Satoshi applied Adam’s proof-of-work spam deflection to miners (servers)… rather than to users sending emails as Adam Back intended.
Satoshi created the first long-lasting user-server model that’s decentralized — problem is it’s very expensive to store data in blocks.
The whole point of nostr that makes it distinct from IPFS is users no longer need to spin up a server to participate — nor do they need to expend tons of computationally power or bandwidth… User costs on nostr should remain low like they are for a bitcoin user’s lightwallet via SPV.
Planet? The Nostrverse will be a microcosm of decentralized webapps and native apps.
😂
Like you said, Nostr is not a timechain.
Nostr should not be relied on for immutability like a strong Nakamoto consensus blockchain is. Nostr is better suited to paying for off-chain data replication across as many computers as possible, on a gradual timeline with daily/weekly zaps to the nostr nodes hosting the data.⚡️
The synergy comes from them working together, like the other off-chain layers do.
Taro bundles off-chain assets into 1 on-chain Merkle root.
Nostr may enhance Taro by allowing you to distribute full copies of assets to as many nostr nodes as possible without putting the full assets on-chain.
See you on the other side 🤙
Bluesky and Zion allow users to self-host their data.
• Nostr distributes data across remote relays but the relays don’t sync/talk to each other [no syncing = less Sybil attack risk].
• IPFS distributes data across remote relays but it can sync the data relays host [syncing = high Sybil attack risk].
IPFS stores data as merkle trees and has synchronization, but it lacks the unforgeable costliness that creates Sybil defense.
Nostr lacks synchronization and is confined to the mutual relay model. This model is inherently small scale, but it minimizes Sybil risk by sacrificing traffic/talking between relays.
The scalability solution succeeding Nostr would be Sybil-resistant synchronization across relays, but so far bitcoin is the only P2P network to achieve this. #[4]
In-depth video explaining how ZKCSP evolved Gregory Maxwell’s [Bitcoin Core Developer] ZKCP Construction: https://youtu.be/lrPruSr7GRI
Beta Code for Zero Knowledge Contingent Service Payments (ZKCSP) over Bitcoin: https://github.com/matteocam/zkcsp-over-bitcoin