Don't listen to the tribal ooga booga people here, there are reasonable people here too, hope you find them!
NIP-17 not sure. NIP-17 groups a security risk imo. One-to-one use case seems solid though.
Yes it's tough. Nostr maybe needs a reboot of sorts.
The issue with Blossom for transcoding is that unless you have rock-solid proof that all the transcoded renditions (720, 1080, etc.) are from the same high-res original then you cannot put any sort of cryptographic stamp of authenticity on the whole set.
If there is even a small amount of trust involved then anyone can potentially sneak anything into any rendition and make a mockery of your cryptographic stamp of authenticity for the set, whatever that stamp happens to be. So maybe a little porn scene snuck into the 720p rendition. If that's possible at all then you cannot stamp.
And for transcoding we’re talking 5 or so renditions per source, often more.
This act of proving all the renditions come from the same original is possible but very expensive and very complex. (Involves trusted execution environments and a bunch of other stuff.) And hard to nostr-ize too.
But for Blossom, it's a "this thing is definitely this thing" hashing protocol. For users one video is one video, they don’t see it as multiple transcoded renditions, so you can't just go hashing one by one. Either you stamp the whole set as a 'single thing' or you stamp nothing.
If we say "well then for transcoded videos we'll just go on trust like at YouTube" then that's fine, we go on trust, but then what is the point of Blossom? For that you only need managed services, like what nostr.build was working on.
Creators shouldn't have to worry about any of this.
Every field has grumps (this grump is actually genuinely funny, a well-liked grump you might say).
Look at AI, there’s some clip of the grump Lecun listing off a bunch of things a 2 year old can do but that LLMs will *never ever ever* be able to do because of the fundamental limits of what an LLM actually is.
Spoiler alert, LLMs can now do every singe one of these things and Lecun has now been pushed out of Meta due to Mark Zuckerberg feeling kinda embarrassed about it all.
Send this grump your 170-qubit absolute speed limit of the quantum universe breakthrough research paper!
He might invite you to New Zealand for some mutton and mint sauce.
the guy literally built the implementation for this already, over years. then from another angle others pushed a different logic that makes his implementation not feasible.
this is fine, both solution-types (global hash vs. managed service) have pros and cons. His way was WAY easier for transcoding. The Blossom way you have to prove, with hashes, that all of the transcoded variants are the "same thing" (even though in file terms they are not at all the same thing), and in a way that someone is going to pay for (the 'proving these variants are from the same original' part is gonna make it super expensive), etc.
to say, hey, yes your way would have been way easier, but anyway, kindly start again on another years-long journey, on a path with obstacles that you didn't ask for, with extra costs that you didn't ask for, and sure, nostr might do an end-run around you once again, but this is the nostr way .. i dunno, i feel for the guy.
there's quite the graveyard here of those such things
sounds to me like he's exhausted
three years of work he put in to this direction, now everything moves in a hash direction and, and if we're being honest to get any sort of hash-based decentralised transcoding system working for users protocol wide (or anything even near protocol wide) is another two or three years.
building on nostr is fast. propagation on nostr is incredibly slow.
Look, your position isn that quantum computing doesn’t exist.
Yet in the real world we have quantum computers doing quantum computing.
How are we supposed to have a discussion in light of that contradiction?
Either we resolve that or there's nothing to say.
No you're just being bokners.
It’s like we’re discussing whether Pepsi causes burps.
I’m saying: “Lots of people have been witnessed drinking Pepsi and then burping, we can even test it ourselves.”
You’re saying: “The letter P cannot be proven to exist and that is the first letter in the word Pepsi ergo there is no such thing as Pepsi and so it’s impossible to burp from it.”
Wrong question.
Question is "is quantum advantage real?"
What happens if you turn a cello inside out?
Your questions don't mean anything. Think in terms of actual experiments. That's how science works. Experiments.
And guess what, these experiments have all been done, you can review the results for yourself. These are answered questions, you're just ignoring the answers.
Someone could code up a "coin wallet" right now that could be easily be cracked with a quantum computer doing quantum computation.
It’d be a super weak key (maybe 22-bit RSA or ECC or something), but it would be a demonstration of real quantum computation cracking a real ‘wallet-style’ key using real quantum effects, and provable.
Any classical computer could crack that key too, of course, though not by making use of entanglement.
I get that you love bitcoin more than anything on earth and you don’t want mean old Mr. Quantum to hurt her, but for all your logic to emanate from from this emotional (and kinda weird) part of your psyche does not make for enlightening debate.
All your posts are just one long teenage love letter repackaged into science-mush.
This coming from the 170 logical qubits is the absolute speed limit of the universe and here's my formula and I'm the only one ever to have worked this out guy.
Spare me.
You're the guy who says no core cryptographic element of any blockchain on the planet earth, including what are often referred to here on nostr as shitcoins, will ever be cracked by a quantum computer.
You seem lost in a world of "maybe nothing is true at all". (It's not just you, so don't feel bad.)
The results of the experiments speak for themselves.
Either you posit that all the universities, labs, journals, etc., are faking results as part of some massive quantum FUD conspiracy, or you accept those results and reform your understanding of the how the universe works around them.
What specifically? The fact that we are able to do genuine quantum computation with what we've got so far is VERY public knowledge.
It's solvable over the course of, what, two years, with a big lobbying effort, intense pushback from those who disagree with the solution and prefer another one, and painfully slow coffee-drip client propagation. (Don't forget Primal, which you mentioned, is still on NIP-04).
And that's assuming it gets adopted at all.
Async server-side transcoding in a verifiable hash environment in a system that doesn't have any sort of holding pen (because there is no central authority to hold stuff) is just really complex. Remember when MLS was supposed to take just some months and have libraries that'd make it easy for any NIP01 client to integrate, and by now we'd all be enjoying MLS groups in our Damusus and our Primals?
Look this stuff is years and years, I'll call anyone's bluff that says this is just a "few months" of friendly zoom calls and clacking around on the keyboard.
> i don't think your customer wants to hear that it just won't work
What's the poor guy supposed to do? Nothing supports what's being asked of him. And he can't just throw something out there and be like "yo, nostr, support this!".
There was one guy here I forget who that performed these coding gymnastics to get secp256k1 quasi-working for passkeys/webauthn via the PRF extension and a bitwarden software vault and a bunch of other stuff, and the result I'm guessing was something impressive but that can't really function in the real world given that webauthn mandates that it's up to users to choose how they want to store passkeys, not websites, and users will just choose keychain or whatever they see first.
Nostr's main defence is that nobody who could potentially do anything about it has ever heard of it.
Because you still have to mine them, ton by ton, you can't just tow one of these to earth, put a parachute on it and done.
Whereas if a lab right now today had a number of quantum machines running 2k logical qubits and 1b gates, Bitcoin would be game over in a week. As in game truly over. Yeah we're nowhere near, but we are at 100 logical qubits and advances in error-correction means there is a clear theoretical path to billions of gates. So it's not crazy pills.
Different threat types.
Just for lay of the land, we are at 96 logical qubits now, with error correction working, and we need around 2,000 logical qubits to crack a wallet key.
The main issue, though, is that unexpected breakthroughs are by nature *unexpected*. That includes breakthroughs in hardware, as well as breakthroughs in pure math, which people often forget about. (The most dangerous breakthroughs for bitcoin are actually mathematical, the space of quantum algorithms and classical assistance for quantum algorithms is woefully under-explored.)
So as long as unexpected breakthroughs are a thing, there is no honest assessment of the number of years that would carry weight. All we can say is that the cracking of bitcoin wallet keys in the near term would require a major breakthrough but is certainly within the realm of possibility.
I've grumpily decided I don't like zaps. Nostr either without zaps, or with like-zaps (a fixed amount per like that nobody change) would be so nice.
The Toaster Protocol
Trusted and Open Association through Signed Text Events on Relays.
Tempting to just go for it. Only kind1 text notes and Outbox.
No DMs, no media, no zaps, no reactions (replies only), no link previews (shortening only).
The only thing I’d add is Falcon keys for post quantum, swap out ECDSA. Because I think it’s kind of wrong to build anything brand new in 2026 on ECDSA.
Ok so let's say you're a compliance auditor. You've been sent by the team a merkle path n' leaf set relating to a website login for a user who supposedly passed an age check, and this includes some user details. You need to run that against Kaspa to see if it checks out, and an RPC call won't do. This suspicious login is from one week ago.
Explain to me how, without an archive node, you do this.
It's actually the opposite. And it's one of the many variables that your one-sentence analysis doesn't factor in.
USDT volume could 1000x the use of the lightning network, and that means 1000x more on-chain transactions for opening channels, closing channels, balancing, etc. (Actually more as the balancing needs are higher.)
USDT volume on tron is $14.9 billion per day. Per DAY! For bitcoin volume on lightning it's in the tens of millions. So a fraction of a single percent.
Right now there are many people in Asia just waiting for the USDT integration with Taproot to go live. If only a few percent of the volume moves from tron to the lightning network that's a massive increase in on-chain transactions related to the lightning network.
It's a very ironic state of affairs, but it is what it is.
No worries. Good to reserach anyway. Maybe X doesn't have a trademark for XChat, who knows? Feels like there must have been lots of things called XChat before X's XChat.
Apple and Google respect trademark claims on their stores, so it just depends on the trademark and if putting the app on the App Store and the Play Store is important or not.
Maybe X doesn't have a trademark for XChat, who knows? Feels like there must have been lots of things called XChat before X's XChat.
Asian Nostr: Yakihonne, Jumble, Keychat, 0xchat, so many other good things.