It could also be cool if notes were ephemeral, like the endless present moment that we all coexist in. Permanence is an illusion, and everything created will eventually be destroyed. Change is the only constant, and embracing that notion could enable freer discussion, where we don’t need to be tethered to the ideas we attached ourselves to in the past.
Which clients allow users to request content deletion? Would love to try them out. I’ve been feeling that lack of content deletion is missing UX for nostr based social media for some time.
"Miners and pools validating transactions from sanctioned addresses are potentially guilty of strict liability sanctions violation" — Carole House (Former Director for Cybersecurity and Secure Digital Innovation in the White House).
From the video above. They are waiting for the right time to strike because hashrate is currently incentivised to aggregate further. It’s not about if, but when.
The majority of hashrate mines for profit. It’s not about what should be, but about what is. It is the case that most large miners are energy arbitrage plays, or ways to mine shareholders in public markets.
Pubcos will absolutely remain compliant, or else they can’t use the ATM to mine their shareholders. That means complying with OFAC sanctions regulation.
I love the bitaxe movement and it enables individuals like you and me to participate in the mining ecosystem, but the problems of censorship on Bitcoin are far bigger than what any of the bitaxe miners can actually solve.
I agree that it should be a norm, but I also see the reality that it isn’t a norm, and changing behaviour en masse is extremely challenging. The elites needed to use many PR tricks to scam the sheeple into injections and mask wearing. That level of behaviour change requires a massive propaganda campaign, which is something not in the budget of an open source movement.
The state has already broached the plan of a feather fork and high level policy circles are talking about it. Bitaxes don’t solve this—it’s an absolutely real threat to base layer censorship resistance, and the tornadocash/samourai wallet trials are setting the precedent to enable the state to fuck the pools and the miners so hard that they mine compliant blocks.
The way we overcome this is +30% of global hashrate distributed across many small and non-compliant pools to make it more difficult for policies like this to be enforced. Bitaxes can be a part of this for sure, but they will be a small part of what needs to be hundreds of exahash to overcome this scale of an attack.
Mining pool game theory for censorship resistance is non-trivial. Your bitaxe or army of bitaxes will not stop compliant pubcos and pools from orphaning your blocks filled with blacklisted transactions.
For that you need substantial hashpower (+30% of global hashrate) to ensure non-OFAC compliant transactions are able to be settled.
That means big international miners cooperating to resist censorship, and big pools resisting censorship. It’s not as simple as virtue signalling with a desktop toy if you are actually considering the ramifications of state censorship of the base layer.
Pools are centralized trusted third parties at the end of the day.
Ocean needs a good narrative to convince miners to switch pools, as there are already quite a few well-capitalised pools offering guaranteed and consistent FPPS payouts.
I don’t think diversity of pools is a bad thing, but the narrative that Bitcoin would be more decentralized if everyone mined for ocean (or any other pool for that matter) is simply not true.
Decentralized = many small independent pools (offering PPLNS payouts because they are more sustainable and incentive compatible)
The only way we achieve that decentralization of hashrate long term is if more pools like Ocean pop up and miners use them. But Ocean isn’t decentralizing hashrate by offering this new service, its decentralizing hashrate through its very existence by offering miners another pool to use to reduce their payout variance.
StratumV2 is better than stratumv1 for sure, but fundamentally the pool can always reject the block templates. I think it would be good to crowdsource block template generation, and Demand pool is pushing the boundary in that regard. Giving miners the responsibility means the state needs to go after more people to enforce censorship, which can make Bitcoin more censorship resistant.
But still if the pool can reject the block template or withhold payment, they’re still trusted third parties. I don’t think this is a bad thing though. Big trustless pools open themselves up to block withholding attacks, but small trusted pools have less of an attack surface. More small trusted pools across more jurisdictions means miners have more choice, and means the state must attack more pools and miners if it tries to censor Bitcoin.
Anything that we can do to make Bitcoin more resilient should be done.
Yeah in 8-12 years I think if price does not substantially increase so as to enable more miners to be profitable, and if fees remain similar to current day, then miners and pools are in for some trouble. Power law correlations are bullish for price, but also demonstrates how hashrate will grow proportionally, thereby impacting the variance for all miners and pools.
Only the strongest most efficient miners with lowest energy costs will survive, or they need to diversify their strategies to generate revenue. They must maximally squeeze all value out of their hashrate and minimise their costs to stay profitable. I also imagine further consolidation by pubcos and other large private miners that are closer to the money printer than the plebs miners.
The consolidation of hashrate and increasing regulatory scrutiny on Bitcoin does not bode well for censorship concerns. A substantial proportion of hashrate mining OFAC compliant blocks might doom Bitcoins censorship resistance, hence why innovation in this area is necessary.
More smaller independent pools that are globally distributed and ideologically leaning towards a censorship resistant Bitcoin is the only solution. Pools are trusted third parties that can be pressured by the state, so the more of them that exist in diverse jurisdictions the better.
Yeah the exponential diminishing of the block reward means that FPPS becomes an unviable reward sharing scheme (even within 8-12 years people are thinking). FPPS is great when block rewards are large, but if volatile tx fees become a sizeable portion of miner/pool revenue then PPLNS becomes the best pool payout system.
FPPS works because the pool can anticipate future block rewards and average out the reward per share, but when future rewards become unpredictable then FPPS becomes unpredictable.
PPLNS is great because it maximally reduces variance while maintaining a no-deficit policy for the pool: miners only get rewarded when the pool finds a block. Pools don’t need to anticipate rewards, they just share the reward with the miner after they receive the reward.
FPPS is the major liquidity driver of mining pool centralization as all miners and pools want to reduce the variance of their hashrate with consistent guaranteed payouts. When the payout per share becomes volatile, then all miners and pools gain exposure to variance risk, and smaller pools can become more tenable for larger miners.
Until then, everyone will be drinking the FPPS kool aid until the pools can no longer maintain those payouts.
Mining pool centralization is fundamentally caused by capital centralization.
Miners use pools to reduce their variance, and pools mine for other pools (as proxies) to reduce their variance.
Mining pools will only become decentralized if the capital to reduce payout variance becomes decentralized.
Until then variance based pooling pressure will cause further hashrate aggregation into megapools that threaten the censorship resistance of Bitcoin.
> censorship resistance
> happy feelings
Choose 1
Assange/Wikileaks didn’t fight battles with the global elite for years for us to feel happy knowing we won’t get censored for saying gm
Either nostr remains happy feelings internet place or it actually becomes a foundational freedom technology used to fight oppression and resist authority
If it were used as empowerment tool for those under the grips of powerful authorities, then nostr would look very different
Free and open prediction markets on nostr are the main potential freedom tech application that can elevate the collective consciousness of humanity.
Censorship resistant speech + censorship resistant money
Fugazi twitter is not gonna cut it
V4V podcasting and music players are not gonna cut it
Censorship resistant speech means you should be able to say whatever and not be censored
Censorship resistant money means you should be able to pay whoever and not be censored
If we are not pushing the bounds on both of these, then we’re not actually making a difference
Resistance technology first requires the will to resist the power structure that binds you to your current consitions
Metaverse is the stupidest application of nostr, and it was mentioned at nostrasia as well as an innovation to look forward to. Metaverse is absolutely the wrong direction, worse than a shitcoin memecoin grift.
Sounds more like a kindergarden toy diverting attention from the wikileaks level cypherpunk origins of freedom technology
This is what happens when web devs just project fantasy ideas of what they think is cool, rather than building what people need to push freedom forward
This is what happens when devs are disconnected from the injustice and inhumanity of those in power—they build useless toys that are meant to placate adult children larping as freedom fighters nostr:note18slay4kczlxel5zq72mg85mzh7k29yqrya6fhx42r3pfwcnrsp3qqk3nge
The greatest censorship threat on nostr is the self-censorship circlejerk of the echo chamber itself
Rather than build freedom tech people are building stupid social crap tech to say gm
Nostr is not privacy tech
Single pubkey as identity is one of the biggest flaws baked into this system
This is what happens when web devs get into the cryptography layer of development
Text signed and transported over web relays need a lot more improvement before it can be called cypherpunk technology nostr:note14t5ruh64685umqt0734aq6dwkrf8hhhw5enndc76fh5qu0qscfrszh927l
Destiny for freedom tech: doomed to fail or devs go to jail. Look at samurai, tornado cash, silk road, wikileaks, and any attempt of digital currency before Bitcoin.
If nostr does not grow and is not a threat to elites then all this talk is hot air to make ourselves feel like we’re doing something important.
The theory doesn’t matter if what we’re doing doesn’t matter. Nostr is a bunch of plebs saying gm and trying to make a friendly social atmosphere not actually an attempt to empower ourselves by undermining those with real power (like wikileaks). Your talk of censorship resistance is all theory until someone tries to censor.
Man I’d love to see caves like that. Incredible formations, and all natural.
Play the victim instead of have a conversation sure
Eat my shoe you clown, you’re literally just larping like a fool
Before starting Bitcoin Prediction Market my co-founder and I were iterating through a few variations of social/art/music betting webapps, which are no longer online. We tried gamifying the music/art/money interaction so as to take it a step beyond tipping, which many already had links for (paypal, buy me a coffee, pateron, etc). In gamifying the UX we thought we could make the money component more interesting.
We talked to hundreds of music producers and artists and they were intrigued at the idea of receiving money, but none were interested in actually participating in a v4v economy. Their main objective was more views and more fans—they wanted to publish to the widest possible audience and gain as much reach as possible.
Legacy music industry has convoluted publishing rights deals, and it gets even worse with labels. Artists are mostly chasing after fans because most people don’t care about their music anyways. Even big producers who got tiktok famous are not interested in a few sats here or there. They either want collabs with more famous artists (signed with labels and have convoluted publishing royalty deals) or they want to promote their music and get more views.
Beatstars and airbit already sell the dream of licensing beats so producers can make a living (and artgrab/redbubble does for artists), and some are succeeding. If u have over 1m listens per month spotify cheques can sustain you as a solo/small artist.
When we tried communicating the new digital economy pitch these artists really didn’t care. They saw the current internet as that new digital economy that already existed. I was even making money off my beats from beatstars way before v4v was a thing. Creator economy is run on paypal.
The worst thing is when these artists said adding money convoluted the art and made it all about money. At the end of the day they r in the business of making art or music because they love art or music, not because they love money… They just want to make enough to do what they love, and that comes by creating a business. Unless they can find customers (fans or other artists willing to license their stuff) then u can’t make money as an artist, and it’s just a hobby u do for the love of it…