Meet Me On Nostr
Is a client in development. It will facilitate nostr “advocates” to onboard their friends by recommending clients, relays, and follows. An instant DM thread will allow them to mentor their fiends during onboarding, boosting retention rates. Built in awards program will zap best performing advocates. More details to come shortly.
nostr:note12r2hnhpn405hf0vxcytj5lpqulmq729dhqyhlc8t3a8qfl0gh6ns7md0vd
nostr:npub1wmr34t36fy03m8hvgl96zl3znndyzyaqhwmwdtshwmtkg03fetaqhjg240 nostr:npub1eu5yg8uclgwnqgvgxmt59kn674qmws0qsqdl4fdvx480cq7xraaq943nau I think there should be some kind of "rich invites". I can create an invite link that, if someone subscribe to a new account (nostr or fedi) will have some following, subscribed hashtags, muted hashtag, and predefined filters.
So I could have a "astronomy" themed invite links I can send and people will embark easily with a non-empty high signal timeline.
Building this right now. Wanna help?
#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=2040x1536&blurhash=%23WJIbHt8M_t8ayWBRPj%5Bt74Tt7WAayWBWBM_Rjj%5B_4RiayWBaeayRiWAay.8RPj%5Bt7ofayfQogfQozt7j%5BWBWBayayayWBt7WBfRWBWBofofWBWBayM_oft7offQozofj%5B&x=386b86304517fb41ef0c9db3ec58ee4379f8eb4022d81541e412779d7e8933f7Nostr, being a platform for decentralized social media, really needs to embrace tools that amplify nuanced ideas.
Big voices are not themselves problematic, but they tend to lack diversity and overpower nuanced ideas.
This is NOT a problem of technology, but of human nature. We gravitate toward big voices.
Influencers with a big voice are still overpowered on Nostr.
Uh nostr:npub1manlnflyzyjhgh970t8mmngrdytcp3jrmaa66u846ggg7t20cgqqvyn9tn, TrustNet is a decentralized subjective WoT system. The numbers only make sense from the perspective of one user towards the network of their contacts.
Thanks. With respect, I do understand. As it should be, trust is relative. Rankings in “my” web of trust will be different than rankings in yours. We can talk about how this should be implemented (I’d be honored to be included) but this doesn’t change my base arguments:
1: “quality of relationship” is HARD and (at best) will not be updated by people. Certainly not en mass.
2: “trust as a numeric scale” will likely NOT reflect an individuals “trustworthiness”, and may in fact be misleading if presented as such.
3: quantifiable (even if some are relative to each user) and non linear (discrete variables that stand on their own) measures of trust can be used to achieve our goal. They might be numerous (and some undefined as yet) but they can be “easily understood” and because of this can be “trusted” by everybody to mean what they promise to mean.
Forgive my random thoughts. Wd love to converse more formally in this topic. How Nostr implements WOT may in fact be its downfall or it’s saving grace. Thank you.
So far, the nostr:npub1s0veng2gvfwr62acrxhnqexq76sj6ldg3a5t935jy8e6w3shr5vsnwrmq5 cohort is living up to expectations.
Good peers, fascinating ideas, chill vibe.
Sign up for the next one!
#SovEng
Link?
Trust cannot be taken for granted. Nostr will grow. Bots and bad actors will come en mass. We are not alone for long.
How to make sure “trusted” people are surrounded by people they “trust”?
Social onboarding is one answer.
nostr:note15m337yt3lf7rg0khtnzmcg4ghqjnwxw46x4a3fz85yye2qcwr6ws9sdvk0
Starting to play with decentralized trust ranking in Spring v0.12.
You can estimate, adjust and publish trust scores for other users - these are estimated from your recent interactions.
https://void.cat/d/T5HriPK2C8QSd7cGsoJVL6.webp
nostr:npub1wmr34t36fy03m8hvgl96zl3znndyzyaqhwmwdtshwmtkg03fetaqhjg240 has been advocating the TrustNet as a web of trust implementation, useful for spam filtering etc.
The algorithm has two steps - first, each user publishes 'trust assignments' - that's trust scores your can now publish with Spring. These are published as 10629 replaceable events with a list of 'p' tags and a score, typical size will probably be ~100 pubkeys. We provide an estimate based on past interactions, but it can't be precise - you may and should adjust it to match your actual relationships.
The second step is that apps can download trust assignments of users close to your network (contacts, people you like/zap a lot etc) and run a calculation akin to PageRank, but it's not global - it's local to your network. The result will be several thousand pubkeys with non-zero trust ranks - a much wider network of users who could be trusted.
This way the trust ranking is a) based on everyone's actual relationships, because you can adjust the trust scores you're publishing, and b) efficient and can be used by any app - it just needs to download several hundred trust score lists and run the trustnet algo periodically and store results in local cache.
Spring only does step one at the moment. When enough people publish their trust assignments we will add the second step and let you calculate your own trust ranks. Spring will show the trust ranks under profiles, and will use it for spam filtering later. Other apps will probably find other uses for it.
More on TrustNet here: https://cblgh.org/trustnet/
FORGIVE MY RANT … but I see TrustNet as little more than a glorified popularity contest. A less qualitative (measurable and meaningful) ranking system may actually be more valuable.
Here are some random thoughts:
On qualifying relationships:
- people don’t want to rank the “quality” of their relationships. ITS HARD!!
- people especially don’t want to come back AGAIN to update these scores (or even add scores for new friends). It will NEVER happen on a regular basis!! (Srsly?)
- Qualitative scores reflecting the “depth” of ones relationship (acquaintance, friend, peer, partner) by definition need to be updated as one’s “perception” of the relationship changes.
- If keeping these qualitative scores updated is required for the success of this trust ranking system, IT WILL FAIL to hold value for its intended purpose.
On trust as a numeric scale :
- The descrete 100 value scale underpinning this “qualitative” score is not only ridiculous (nobody knows or cares about a 100 value scale) and meaningless (the increments as applied will still be arbitrary) it could also be detrimental for a trust ranking system.
- Trustworthiness is not a scalar value. Humans don’t have “more” or “less” trust for each other. We either “do” or “do not” trust each other in specific cases. Because of this, ranking on a scale is prone to misinterpretation.
- What translates well to a scale is popularity. “If my friends trust X (or if X has a bigger voice and reach) then I will give X a higher trust score.” Problem with this is that the value no longer represents individual trustworthiness.
On quantifiable measures of trust :
- Quantitative measures can be used to determine trust. They don’t ALL have to be algorithmically derived. A mix of Hand reported and computer generated data may work best.
- Digital identities may have “layers” of trust (distinct from physical interactions) that may be applied “each on their own” (in no particular order) to determine trustworthiness for specific interactions.
- One layer of digital trust may be verification of personhood. For some transactions, a real person is required.
- Another layer of digital trust may be verifying asset ownership. Is this the same entity that “owns” X, Y, or Z known digital assets?
- Another layer of digital trust may be verifying originality. Does this account pretend to be somebody else and if so is it obviously a spoof? (This may be accomplished best by actual humans)
- Other layers of trust may exist, may be discovered, and may be applicable for web of trust implementations. For this reason, any NIP developed should be open to expansion.
- Web of trust COULD be determined by discrete “flags” being applied (by humans and by algorithms) to a profile. Each verifies a specific known and measurable quantity. Together they “add up to” an overall “verified” or “trusted” visible mark (one or three different marks?) applied to profiles. TBD.
We really should be discussing this in earnest (openly, but in a dedicated format). Decentralized WOT implementation will NOT ONLY be a prime differentiator for Nostr from other socials, but will ALSO be essential for Nostr’s success as a social network that is NOT overrun by bots and bad actors.
Thanks. #rantover
Yes. And bots and other bad actors will come en mass. “Organic” trust networks will be what keeps Nostriches safe.
nostr:note16n90wgwwpsskh7eqpvhpl897k7lu4z0e3cc4ednsjxug09j0t3ps98sra6
I suppose I do
read between the lines.
Opinions are like assholes. Everyone’s got one, out of which comes the fertilizer of society. How to make use of ALL that?
I am unimportant, but not without opinion.
> “if someone has NO friends on nostr and joins nostr then they're indistinguishable from a bot. In fact, on Nostr they're much more likely to be a bot bcs it's an open network.” nostr:npub1xdtducdnjerex88gkg2qk2atsdlqsyxqaag4h05jmcpyspqt30wscmntxy
The challenge of rapidly on-ramping HUMAN users into a their own web-of-trust is an existential threat AND unique opportunity for Nostr.
Because Nostr is out in the open, without the protective walls of centralized trust allocation, organic trust between humans is the ONE WAY that Nostr will avoid (the image of) being “overrun” by bots and bad actors.
They will come in large numbers. Our only hope is to establish tools for decentralized trust that keep humans out of their reach, without being isolated from each other.
This has never been done before. All bets are on the table. But my bets are on leveraging IRL relationships to onboard “word of mouth” new users to trusted networks.
This is why:
But seriously. Also we need better tools for establishing web of trust. Thanks for your work on this with Spring. I have thoughts and would like to join the convo…
> “if someone has NO friends on nostr and joins nostr then they're indistinguishable from a bot. In fact, on Nostr they're much more likely to be a bot bcs it's an open network.” nostr:npub1xdtducdnjerex88gkg2qk2atsdlqsyxqaag4h05jmcpyspqt30wscmntxy
The challenge of rapidly on-ramping HUMAN users into a their own web-of-trust is an existential threat AND unique opportunity for Nostr.
Because Nostr is out in the open, without the protective walls of centralized trust allocation, organic trust between humans is the ONE WAY that Nostr will avoid (the image of) being “overrun” by bots and bad actors.
They will come in large numbers. Our only hope is to establish tools for decentralized trust that keep humans out of their reach, without being isolated from each other.
This has never been done before. All bets are on the table. But my bets are on leveraging IRL relationships to onboard “word of mouth” new users to trusted networks.
This is why:
> “But organic interactions take time, and also on Nostr it might simply be too costly to organically outpace bots that will try to gain trust the same way.”
nostr:npub1xdtducdnjerex88gkg2qk2atsdlqsyxqaag4h05jmcpyspqt30wscmntxy
I see “organic interactions” as not only “the best” way to overcome Nostr’s novel (not insignificant) onboarding hurdles, but also kind of a super power that the nostr community has over other “less exciting” socials. I actually see a real opportunity for nostr in this way.
I’m developing a social onboarding client to serve exactly this need (instant trust scores and recommended clients and relays) powered by real human nostr advocates.
Are you saying this might be a wasted effort… that humans may be powerless against the machines to manage trust in a social network? Or are you just saying “humans are complicated and machines are less so”? Thanks.
Funny how nobody actually answered correctly. #onboarding
nostr:note1u353chjyqgyh76unqdja6jmw2e95qd9f9pek4ky8nww02ymqxcxs2vtx6n