Avatar
Psilocyberbull
df5b213d8eeda721796ba42cd7ea6cfccadb99ba2b382e2c089d8ed8b08a9ba1
"Nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care" - George Carlin

I love how this is how I found out its an actual issue and it wasn't just the work wifi lol

Could have spent $20 on self checkout groceries and ate healthy for a week lol

Damn Uber Eats, 40% off coupon and 3% back on fold. Everything is still a terrible deal lol I'm hungry and now I'm really about to spend half an hour trying to get ripped off as little as possible 🤣

What exactly is a hostile relay capable of doing? There is a lot of plaintext user data tied to each public key, it's an advertisers dream. They're not gonna ask for bitcoin

I consider myself I low time preference guy and i still can't imagine the dedication it takes to build like that knowing any visible change could take such considerable time and effort

Replying to Avatar miljan

Dust has finally settled on the “Primal censorship” drama. That’s good to see, but I don’t want to sweep this episode under the rug. It is probably appropriate to do a post mortem, assess what has happened and see what we can learn. Let’s make sure that Nostr is a better place after this episode.

Two weeks ago, Primal’s trending algorithm was attacked by bots. The attacker generated hundreds of thousands of reactions, propping his note to the top of our trending feed. At the time, our only defence was a simple “can’t trend” list, so we put the attacker on it. He immediately posted on Nostr, accusing us of censorship, but his note never took off. The attacker then selected a few well liked Nostr accounts and started stuffing the ballot box for them. We saw a bunch of bogus notes with massive bot engagement, so we resorted to the only blunt tool we had. The attacker jumped on the opportunity to publicize the fact that some well liked accounts were being suppressed on Primal and accused us of “shadowbanning”. The whole thing exploded on Nostr.

What followed was a pretty tough week for Primal. Many of our users turned against us. They took the idea of shadowbanning seriously, as they should. Most feedback was in good spirits, people making fun of Primal via memes. But we also got a fair bit of hate from complete strangers, which was super-weird. All in all, Nostr users were clear about what they think of censorship. This was the Nostr immune system reacting. Being on the receiving end of it really sucked, but still it’s beautiful to see!

The crazy part is that those “shadowbanned” accounts were actually perfectly visible throughout the entire Primal site. They had *exactly* the same level of visibility as they do on Damus, Snort, Coracle, and other Nostr clients. They just couldn’t show up in our trending bar. I tried to explain, but there was little room for nuance with the drama in full swing.

So we decided to disengage temporarily, focus on building, and let our product do the talking. We made our trending algorithm more resistant to bots and removed everyone from the “can’t trend” list. We also built a new content moderation system for Nostr, giving complete control to the user. This is our best take on how to do content moderation on such a radically open network. I cover the features and our reasoning in my blog post below.

So Primal is strictly a better product after this episode. But what about Nostr itself?

Attacks can be useful. While they disrupt our systems and really suck for us and our users, they do force us to improve and become more competent at operating in an adversarial environment. However, we should be careful about making it socially acceptable for Nostr devs to attack other projects in broad daylight. That’s not the most productive way to collaborate. It also creates weird vibes which I think we don’t want here. Nostr is in its infancy and the way we act will set the tone for things to come. There is so much to build and we are all working as fast as we can. At Primal we build open source software and run services for Nostr. If you don’t like the way something works, fork it and do your own thing. If you want to contribute, we accept PRs. If you have found a vulnerability, there are multiple good ways to disclose it.

As for Nostr users, I think you all reacted perfectly. Push back hard at any whiff of censorship. When in doubt, mercilessly create memes, point out things that are wrong, and don’t let up. Even if the target is Primal.

If Primal is real, it can stand the pressure. 🤙💜

https://habla.news/u/miljan@primal.net/1693416828339

Couldn't have imagined a better public statement in this situation, very happy to see

Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

“We should change Bitcoin now in a contentious way to fix the security budget” is basically the same tinkering mentality that central bankers have.

It begins with an overconfident assumption that they know fees won’t be sufficient in the future and that a certain “fix” is going to generate more fees. But some “fixes” could even backfire and create less fees, or introduce bugs, or damage the incentive structure.

The Bitcoin fee market a couple decades out will primarily be a function of adoption or lack thereof. In a world of eight billion people, only a couple hundred million can do an on chain transaction per year, or a bit more with maximal batching. The number of people who could do a monthly transaction is 1/12th of that number. In order to be concerned that bitcoin fees will be too low to prevent censorship in the future, we have to start with the assumption that not many people use bitcoin decades out.

Fedwire has about 100x the gross volume that Bitcoin currently does, with a similar number of transactions. What will Bitcoin’s fee market be if volumes go up 5x or 10x, let alone 50x or 100x? Who wants to raise their hand with a confident model of what bitcoin volumes will be in 2040?

What will someone pay to send a ten million dollar equivalent on chain settlement internationally? $100 in fees per million dollar settlement transaction would be .01%. $300 to get it in a quicker block would be 0.03%. That type of environment can generate tens of billions of dollars of fees annually. The fees that people pay to ship millions of dollars of gold long distances, or to perform a real estate transaction worth millions of dollars, are extremely high. Even if bitcoin is a fraction of that, it would be high by today’s standards. And in a world of billions of people, if nobody wants to pay $100 to send a million dollar settlement bearer asset transaction, then that’s a world where not many people use bitcoin period.

In some months the “security budget” concern trends. In other months, the “fees will be so high that only rich people can transact on chain” concern trends. These are so wildly contradictory and the fact that both are common concerns shows how little we know about the long term future.

I don’t think the fee market can be fixed by gimmicks. Either the network is desirable to use in a couple decades or it’s not. If 3 or 4 decades into bitcoin’s life it can’t generate significant settlement volumes, and gets easily censored due to low fees, then it’s just not a very desirable network at that point for one reason or another.

Some soft forks like covenants can be thoughtfully considered for scaling and fee density, and it’s good for smart developers to always be thinking about low risk improvements to the network that the node network and miners might have a high consensus positive view toward over time. But trying to rush VC-backed softforks, and using security budget FUD to push them, is pretty disingenuous imo.

Anyway, good morning.

You are without a doubt by far my favorite mind in bitcoin 👏👏

"Why is food and energy so much more expensive?"

"Shut up and buy an iPad"

Oh wow didn't expect that. How does it feel to so attractive nobody thinks you could possibly be real 🤣