Your nomenclature will be custom tailored to the purpose of a rating system for relays, I assume.
I wonder: Could the list of types at:
https://schema.org/docs/schemas.html
fulfill the role of a namespace? (Where a “type” at schema.org = an l-tag label in nip-32.)
And specifically, could
be useful for coracle’s relays rating system?
I’m wondering to what extent a variety of customized namespaces could be made interoperable / overlapping. Maybe schema.org augmented by whatever additional types a dev might need for some specific application.
If I’m understanding correctly, a namespace L is basically a list of tags that we can use to look up what any particular tag means? …
nostr:npub1cpstx8lzhwctunfe80rugz5qsj9ztw8surec9j6mf8phha68dj6qhm8j5e
I’ve been reading through the pull requests in the nips repo related to nip-32 and I can def sympathize with concerns by #[3], #[4] and others, particularly here: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/457, regarding defined vocabularies. We need them, but they are awful in so many ways. I may add some of my thoughts over there, but while the thought occurs to me I wanted to wonder out loud whether crowdsourcing a NIP-32 namespace — which is basically a defined vocabulary, if I am understanding correctly (and I may not be) — might be a potential application of (and potential way to test out the feasibility of) loose consensus using DCoSL.
If I’m understanding correctly, a namespace L is basically a list of tags that we can use to look up what any particular tag means? …
nostr:npub1cpstx8lzhwctunfe80rugz5qsj9ztw8surec9j6mf8phha68dj6qhm8j5e
Cool. Trying to understand how it works now. It’s making me think of JSON-LD, linked data. I’m thinking a context in JSON-LD plays a similar role to a namespace in nip 32, although I haven’t fully grokked nip 32 yet (and it’s been a while since I’ve thought about linked data) so I could be misunderstanding.
(Just checking that I’m looking at the right nip-32 since it’s not yet been merged)
I’ve had it sitting on my desk for maybe a year or two. Haven’t read it yet though 😅
Definitely. I’d love to see a list for that on Pretty Good Apps!
ChromeBooks are linux-based, right? I have an AppImage in the v0.1.1-alpha release that I think should work. You’ll probably need to change the file to executable after you download it. Or of course if you don’t like to use AppImages, you can always just run it in dev mode, although the app will take a little longer to launch after you install it. You’ll just need node and npm for that.
If it isn’t working out of the box for you then let me know! Right now I’ve got mac and linux builds. I can add a windows build pretty easily if you’d like.
Actually, for starters I just need to know if anyone can even get the app to launch 🤪😂
The first step is to demonstrate decentralized curation of a simple list. No need for the categories and the hierarchies and other complexities. Those will be added later. For now, the challenge is to curate simple lists in a GENUINELY DECENTRALIZED fashion.
I claim — and this is a bold claim — that my app does that right now, today. But it requires us to scrutinize what qualifies as “genuinely decentralized.” Which is why I need people to play around with the app and see how it works, under the hood, and tell me whether my claim is justified.
Your web of trust will do more than just curate the best books for a given category. It will also curate the list of categories, and it will arrange those categories into hierarchies. If some new genre of book becomes the next big thing, like the time-traveling-Satoshi-wizard-cypherpunk-thriller genre 😜, your grapevine will tell you about it faster than the book publishing companies!
If you’re looking for other places to eat, Gruzie is an awesome Georgian restaurant in Prague 1, a few blocks from the Old Jewish Cemetery.
btw that’s called Proof of Candles in the background, lol.
One of the most important desired goals of DCoSL is the ability to generate something I call “loose consensus.” Basically, loose consensus means that if Alice and Bob each crowdsource any given list X to their respective webs of trust, then there is a high probability that they will end up with the same (or highly similar) set of items on the list, despite the lack of any centralized enforcement mechanism to guarantee agreement.
Loose consensus is already evident in the way a spoken language works. In English, we all agree to call a pencil a pencil, despite the lack of any central authority enforcing such agreement. Pretty amazing that it happens, if you think about it.
I propose that the ability to curate a simple list in a genuinely decentralized fashion -- no tokens or blockchains, no email or social media or phone number verifications -- should be considered not only the atomic unit but also the fundamental building block of the decentralized web. If we can curate simple lists, then the ability to curate **data structures of arbitrary complexity** will very quickly fall into place.
I’m hoping that the DCoSL protocol will make stuff like that possible. Currently implemented in Pretty Good Apps.
How about collections of notes that are crowdsourced by your web of trust?
Click a button and see what your web of trust says are the most relevant notes of all time on some topic of interest. Example: Most Historically Significant Nostr Notes of All Time, curated by my grapevine.