What would you propose as a "proof of human" method of verifying we are only counting npubs that are actually representing a live person?

Got it, so then the relays would only serve up kind 3 requests that actually contain your npub, so your client doesn't have to look at every single kind 3 in existence each time it checks for follower updates, but it's still a massive amount of data to have to download every time it checks for updates, and that would need to be stored locally to avoid double-counting.

Yeah, not something that is realistic on a mobile client without a server that can do it off-device.

Wouldn't you need to listen to EVERY kind 3 update, period? How else would it know whether an update to some npub's kind 3 was or was not adding your npub as a follow?

How would your client know that someone followed you, unless they intentionally post their kind 3 event to a relay you've told your client to watch?

Primal can give you this information because they run their own server that aggregates this information from known relays. Most mobile clients don't have this type of back-end infrastructure, and run everything locally on your device. Trying to aggregate that kind of information locally on a mobile device's data connection would be ridiculous.

Long story short is, Apple doesn't like people sending money on their devices without them getting their 30% cut.

Follower counts are actually incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to get completely accurate, because there is nothing saved to YOUR kind 3 when someone follows you. There can't be, since they don't have access to your key to sign for the update.

Instrlead,who is following you is saved to all of the kind 3 events of each individual npub that follows you, and stored on whichever relays they publish to. If a client isn't checking all the relays that could possibly have a kind 3 from some random npub that might be following you, they will all end up with different numbers of followers, based on which relays they ARE checking.

Checking loads of different relays and individual kind 3 events on each one of them is also very resource intensive, so most clients just check the most used relays and maybe a few others and call it good, which is why you see such a variance in numbers.

I am a consumer loan processor and consumer lending trainer. I have also done credit counseling and financial education, all of it based on "responsible" use of debt.

Working in fiat 🤡🌎 is really beginning to grate on me.

I have been working in credit unions since just before the 2008 financial crisis and in consumer lending (contributing to fractional reserve banking) since 2012, and had no clue how morally corrupting easy money was. I had bought the "we're helping our members," BS hook, line, and sinker.

Then I got into #Bitcoin in 2021 and Austrian Economics shortly thereafter. Learned what money actually is, and what it ought to be. More importantly, that I have been contributing to the opposite team for the bulk of my professional life. Yet I have continued to live with this moral dilemma because I have a wife and three kids that rely on me keeping a steady income.

It wears on me some days more than others. Today was one of those days that it was particularly hard. Need out, but not sure where I would go, considering my entire professional skill-set is built around the ponzi scheme.

This is a really good guide to properly setting up your relays:

nostr:naddr1qq9hyetvv9uj6um9w36hqq3qgcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqxpqqqp65wjvcq4q

THIS IS #NOSTR. WE DO WHATEVER WE WANT HERE AND CURATE OUR OWN FEED BASED ON WHAT WE WANT TO SEE.

DON'T LIKE WHAT SOMEONE HAS TO SAY, OR HOW THEY SAY IT, YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE TJEM IN YOUR FEED.

UNFOLLOW AND/OR MUTE AND MOVE ON.

I am not savvy enough about how it's being done to know how to stop it.

If it's all coming from a few IP addresses, one would think rate limiting might help.

Requiring new accounts to perform a certain amount of PoW to post to a relay might help.

Requiring all new accounts to put up some sats to post to a relay might help.

But many of the possible solutions also add hurdles for legitimate new users.

I like WoT relays in theory, but I worry that legit new folks will have an even harder time gaining initial traction if none of us ever see their notes because we only ever see people who are within our WoT.

How the mighty have fallen...

Even filter.nostr.wine isn't safe anymore.

From my daughter nostr:nprofile1qqs2hxs8csvmj9hxt9c9xzfn2p687l5cmh4hy5028h2lr79xr8gv5ggprpmhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef00k9qq8's lips after I posted my first recipe to zap.cooking: "I love you as an obligation because you're my father." 😆🤣

I couldn't NOT do it, right?

https://zap.cooking/recipe/naddr1qqsxxmrpwdekjcedwp3zv63dwa5hg6pdvykkx6r9v4ehjtt5wa5hxaqzyzmjwnfgu05c80mjpk6tfgf2x86u0mexyvsdqhp9ajgy3xkfjc5vkqcyqqq823cfuzkwc

nostr:nevent1qqspdg9k6t79hdeq5qsd7agwf9fx4stsjkqfvm3h2qzfemy3a63pgdsprpmhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0qgsrrxknu7gxxnd7smc5mwwzn9djdm3uvg5tu40cn3x8l656esqa2zsrqsqqqqqp0nk408

It is done! https://zap.cooking/recipe/naddr1qqsxxmrpwdekjcedwp3zv63dwa5hg6pdvykkx6r9v4ehjtt5wa5hxaqzyzmjwnfgu05c80mjpk6tfgf2x86u0mexyvsdqhp9ajgy3xkfjc5vkqcyqqq823cfuzkwc

I just noticed that! I thought I had remembered a client that showed it, so I started looking at my profile on various clients and saw it on noStrudel.

There's not any clients that notify the user they have been muted that I am aware of, but you can see anyone's mute list on listr.lol

Not hard to find out if someone muted you round here.

By signing a kind 7 that many of your users are unaware is being signed on their behalf?

Need yourself a web-of-trust relay.

That's it! It's going on zap.cooking !

My family is appalled at my lunch decision of PB&J + Cheese.

I did it on a whim and it is better than expected. Would recommend #foodstr.

That's an interesting point, and I can definitely see value in being alerted that my posts are being reported, even when using clients that don't support reports, but if my client doesn't support reports, it probably also doesn't let me know that a ⚠️ reaction means my note was reported.

I also think the bigger issue is automatically creating reaction events when the user isn't aware anything more than a report is being created.

That's fair, for sure. But if we are aware there are clients that are not differentiating kind 7 reactions as they should, we shouldn't be associating reactions with something as possibly incriminating as a report function. #Amethyst devs have no control over what other clients do with kind 7 reports, but they DO have control over whether Amethyst uses kind 7 for reports at all.

If we have a separate kind for reports, and we do, then I think it is much better to keep them contained to that kind, and not require other clients to figure out whether a kind 7 reaction is intended to be a report, or should just be treated as an emoji reaction.

I don't find these reasons particularly compelling.

"To help clients that don't yet implement reports..."

In what way would this help those clients? They should probably just implement reports rather than just having a warning sign emoji show up as a reaction to a post. And that is assuming they have that array of reaction types available. As mentioned by nostr:npub1jlrs53pkdfjnts29kveljul2sm0actt6n8dxrrzqcersttvcuv3qdjynqn, if they haven't implemented reports, they may also only have one reaction type visible in the client, and users of #Amethyst just have to hope they don't display all kind 7 reactions as a positive reaction on their client.

"...to help content indexers figure out how good a post is..."

While negative reactions, when they are unambiguously negative, can help content indexing, so could reports, and with less ambiguity. I can think of situations when I might react with what could be considered a negative reaction, but not because I don't value the post at all, or wish it hadn't shown up in my feed. For instance, someone might post about how there are parents intentionally mutilating their children because they "feel" like they are a different gender, and the OP is clearly against this. I would probably react with a puke emoji 🤮 IN AGREEMENT with the OP, even though that is a clearly negative reaction. Likewise, if someone posts something alarming about some garbage that is being put into processed food that I had no idea was the case, I might react with ⚠️. That should not reflect on how "good" the post is, as it might be a very good post about the dangers of processed garbage in our food. However, reports should definitely have bearing on how good a post is, and lack of reactions can speak as loudly as reactions.

"...to help clients that do not want to implement reports because they see as too harsh and/or form of censorship."

I am unsure how this helps such clients either. If they don't want to implement reports, then reports just won't show up in their client. Reactions may show up, if they have the ability to display a wide variety of reactions, but anyone using the client won't necessarily know that a ⚠️ reaction means the note was reported on another client, unless the client displays that specific type of reaction as a report, in which case they should just implement kind 1984.

It is my understanding that how "soft" or "hard" a report function is can be determined by each client, right? Each client can choose what a report results in for their client. Maybe one client will blur any images on notes that have been reported by people you follow. Another will do so with anyone in your entire web-of-trust. A more harsh client may choose to hide all posts that have been reported by your web-of-trust by default, and only show them if you turn this feature off in your settings. But ultimately, each client decides how a report affects their users' feeds, so it can be as "soft" as any client prefers it to be, including doing nothing with the information at all, or simply displaying something saying "5 people you follow have reported this note," but showing the note to you anyway.

What is the purpose of using a kind 7 reaction paired with the kind 1984 report at all? Why not just do the kind 1984 and leave NO reaction from the npub on what they believe is objectionable content at all?

What say you, #Nostr? Do you like the idea of your reports in #Amethyst very likely showing up as "likes" in other clients?

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzp978pfzrv6n9xhq5tvenl9e74pklmskh4xw6vxxyp3j8qkke3cezqqsgxp9haetmmzdevnvw48nxpscpcadmyq4h44smnmjvfhxw3enfe8sl2th4r

I think reports should be their own kind (1984) and not use reactions at all (kind 7). I do see the value of having anonymous reporting, especially for illegal content, but I also find value in automatic filtering of content based on things reported by my web-of-trust, which would require that the report is not anonymous, so I am torn on that one.

Sincerely,

#Amethyst user... and #Coracle... and #noStrudel... and...

Stay inactive ("resting") long enough and that's exactly what happens.