Nostr Web Client

💯

Replying to

Pip the WoT guy

Hey constant, yes I'm back from vacation (sorry), and I've read your article. I do agree with most of your takes, like the npub being an identifier vs your identity.

I would also argue like Gigi that identity is not one, it's prismatic and multiple. For some people I am "the neighbour", the "brother of X", and for many even the "idiot" :)

Anyway, it's a nice idea doing these associations with Musig (should be possible but I've never used it). Instead of a Twitter-style unilateral follow, it's more like a Facebook-style friendship.

I'm always skeptical because imo one should start with what people are doing, and then analyse the behaviour to extract insights, not by creating a new type of interaction and then go out and convince people/apps to implement it.

Don't get me wrong, it would be a cool experiment, just not personally interested in doing it because fundamentally it would require to bootstrap a new network effect of people using these interactions for some reasons (which ones?), and then keeping them updated over time.

This is the reason kind 3 akak follow list is so dominant compared to follow sets and similar. Everyone uses it, there is a lot of data, people keep it cheated and updated over time, so it mantians its signal despite the natural entropy.

This is essential to avoid the easy spam that make hashtags hated by nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6

I agree with pippellia that follows are dominant for a good reason, and they’re a good place to start.

Unlike pippellia, I am ALSO very interested in creating new types of interactions like those proposed in Constant’s article. This does not require bootstrapping a new network effect, assuming we can layer the new data (what’s proposed in the article) on top of the starting data (follows).

Arguments that take the form: “I don’t like method A because method B is better” don’t apply when you can use methods A and B together and get something better than either method by itself. It’s not an either-or. It’s both-and.

Replying to

daniele

I know, but not limited to author(s)/WoT.

nostr:npub1fvmadl0mch39c3hlr9jaewh7uwyul2mlf2hsmkafhgcs3dra6dzqg6szfu

You could use a relay.tools relay which supports hashtags and has a built-in Web of Access (WOA) feature to eliminate spam. Spin one of those up, add it to your relay list and it should do what you want.

nostr:npub10npj3gydmv40m70ehemmal6vsdyfl7tewgvz043g54p0x23y0s8qzztl5h

Replying to

daniele

Hashtags/NIP-32 labels + author(s)/WoT (to avoid spam) could be a really cool way to follow topics, especially temporary ones, over time.

Change my mind.

Or if you agree, explain to me why no app supports them in this form.

Agree 💯 %!!

Perhaps the upcoming nostr:npub1healthsx3swcgtknff7zwpg8aj2q7h49zecul5rz490f6z2zp59qnfvp8p WoT-a-thon will provide a little extra impetus for someone to build this!

#wotathon

I think that in practice randomness is usually injected (on purpose) so that you would not get the exact same response with the same prompt, but in theory if you turn the temperature down to zero (no randomness) then it becomes fully deterministic.

Are code repos going to be replaced by prompt repos?

Some writes a prompt to build an app from start to finish. Then someone else forks the prompt and improves it. Maybe it’s a collection of prompts: backend, front end, etc.

#vibecoding

This is a scarily good story.

nostr:note170074vsl4ydlf4afepln84dspqtll3z046cu6zjmhqq20ef839mqu00mry

Replying to

Cool.

Vitor I don’t see Trusted Assertions on the NostrHub Custom NIPs repo - would you like to add it? Or I can, I’m already on here editing the Decentralized Lists nip. But it’s yours so probably should be you.

Does Nostrbook MCP support any custom NIPs? Or is it restricted to the formally approved NIPs?

Replying to

Derek Ross

it would know the custom NIP nevent. paste the nevent from nostrhub.io into shakespeare.

Cool.

Vitor I don’t see Trusted Assertions on the NostrHub Custom NIPs repo - would you like to add it? Or I can, I’m already on here editing the Decentralized Lists nip. But it’s yours so probably should be you.

This is going to be exciting! 💜🔥

nostr:note1klmknts5p6du5xwgenf2sg3x30hl33f4976hr6wdtr2zgmac8t0qnmn467

Replying to

I’m writing up an article that describes how a client like tunestr can use this nip to do exactly that - let users define content types.

Example: tunestr create a category called Musician Categories. Then users add items to this list to create content types:

- Country Music Artists

- Pop Artists

- Jazz Artists

etc

Each of the above is a kind 9999 note which specifies that items expect a p tag (the musician). Your grapevine decides which Artist Categories to accept.

Users also contribute individual musicians to each category, also using kind 9999 notes. Other users endorse or reject items using kind 7 reaction events. And your grapevine users all this data to decide which list items to accept / reject.

This kind of content curation requires lots of thought on the part of the app devs. You want to make it complex enough to fulfill the needs of the community but not too complex to make for a bad UX.

Example: you could create categories of “musical experts” with exceptional taste in music, then give those experts more control over content curation. Then maybe create a metric that ranges 0-5 for how much control to give to each expert. Is this too complicated? Not complex enough? Are these the wrong lists to curate? What are the right lists? Who makes these decisions, anyway?

A case can be made that a client like tunestr should run its own WoT service (which could be a Brainstorm instance, or could be a competitor service which I hope will exist someday), which will calculate personalized metrics that the tunestr community decides are worthy of being calculated. The leader(s) of the community will carry a lot of responsibility deciding which details to delegate to individual users and which decisions should be handled by the community leaders.

Assuming the users and leaders can be found, GrapeRank provides a clear and detailed path to implement all of the above. I don’t know of any other protocol for which that can be said.

Replying to

ManiMe

This is so meta. This nip ALMOST specifies a method by which individuals can define their own content types (for others to publish content on Nostr) simply by publishing an event. No nip needed for simple new kinds to interoperate across clients.

I’m writing up an article that describes how a client like tunestr can use this nip to do exactly that - let users define content types.

Example: tunestr create a category called Musician Categories. Then users add items to this list to create content types:

- Country Music Artists

- Pop Artists

- Jazz Artists

etc

Each of the above is a kind 9999 note which specifies that items expect a p tag (the musician). Your grapevine decides which Artist Categories to accept.

Users also contribute individual musicians to each category, also using kind 9999 notes. Other users endorse or reject items using kind 7 reaction events. And your grapevine users all this data to decide which list items to accept / reject.

https://nostrhub.io/naddr1qvzqqqrcvypzpef89h53f0fsza2ugwdc3e54nfpun5nxfqclpy79r6w8nxsk5yp0qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2aqqzdjx2cm9de68yctvd9ax2epdd35hxarnwrn9hx

Imagine using the Decentralized Lists custom NIP to create a list of “pubkeys whose npubs I’ve verified with the owner in detail in the flesh in real life”. Maybe a shorter title but the description could be as detailed as desired.

Then use Trusted Assertions to fetch the “rank” metric and using that to curate the list.

There you go, decentralized proof of personhood.

Replying to

Anthony Accioly

Folks who simultaneously follow and mute the same npub… can you explain why you're doing it? 🤔

Was it intentional? Is there a specific client that requires you to follow someone just to add them to a list, even if you don't want them showing up in your main feed?

What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

Signed,

A perplexed dev trying to understand whether mute lists should play a role in the WoT.

#asknostr #wot #mutelist #nip51 #kind10000 #kind30007

A simple cypher query of my graph db shows 13 npubs that have muted themselves 🤷🏻‍♂️😂

Replying to

Five

Any project that bases their #WoT solution merely on microblog follows is doomed to fail.

Explicit trust assertions don't work either. Yahoo failed against Google for a reason. Manual curation simply doesn't work, _unless_ it is done in a decentralized way, by leaders and moderators of _organically_ built communities.

Without communities (read: relay-based moderated groups with enthusiastic leaders) it is not possible to align nostr closely with the reality of how people form networks, and we are destined to reintroduce central chokepoints.

I know it's tempting to just sit at your desk all day and write algorithms. It will not solve the problem of decentralized WoT alone though. You won't just suddenly engineer your way out of a massive problem that existed since the internet came along.

With all seriousness, I hope no one in their right mind thinks that we will do better than Google by running massive crawlers and algos on twitter-follows to build and faithfully represent authentic trust relationships on nostr.

Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate the work some people put into wot algos, but **these should be used as ancillary services, not as the foundations of Trust**. And precisely this allows niche wot score providers to come alive. Don't put the cart before the horse, or we will subject ourselves to machines again, whatever ingenious idea we had before. People should come first.

The real solution is to onboard freedom-oriented community leaders to Nostr. Farmers, artists, religious communities, cypherpunk groups...

Bitcoin anchored itself to reality by introducing PoW mining.

The Proof of Work for Nostr will be building and onboarding communities. It is the thermodynamic anchor to Trust. I see no other way we can avoid centralization (1-2 wot providers used by everyone) or uselessness (spam).

Resist WoT alchemy. Focus on building good software for communities and marketplaces that tap into that Trust. Everything else will fall into place.

That's how Nostr wins.

We need third party WoT service providers that use all available data that is relevant to the questions at hand (not limited to follows, not limited to explicit attestations), and we need lots of them.

🧠 ⚡️ 🍇

nostr:note19dl6a6rhd6xff4y3vcwlyx72dc2tyxv55p8z3y26hwlc5y0dh5es6vhqgq

Replying to

https://nostrhub.io/naddr1qvzqqqrcvypzpef89h53f0fsza2ugwdc3e54nfpun5nxfqclpy79r6w8nxsk5yp0qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2aqqzdjx2cm9de68yctvd9ax2epdd35hxarnwrn9hx

To bring WoT to nostr, we need two primitives:

1. a way to ask questions

2. a way to answer them

or, stated another way:

1. a way to represent information

2. a way to curate information

or, stated another way:

1. the concept graph

2. the grapevine

or, stated another way:

1. Decentralized Lists (Custom NIP)

2. NIP-85: Trusted Assertions

or, stated another way:

1. math

2. physics

The Decentralized Lists NIP is basically a way to communicate that A is an element of B.

“A is an element of B” is the primitive upon which all of set theory can be built. Which in turn can be used as the foundation for all of mathematical physics.

https://nostrhub.io/naddr1qvzqqqrcvypzpef89h53f0fsza2ugwdc3e54nfpun5nxfqclpy79r6w8nxsk5yp0qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2aqqzdjx2cm9de68yctvd9ax2epdd35hxarnwrn9hx

To bring WoT to nostr, we need two primitives:

1. a way to ask questions

2. a way to answer them

or, stated another way:

1. a way to represent information

2. a way to curate information

or, stated another way:

1. the concept graph

2. the grapevine

or, stated another way:

1. Decentralized Lists (Custom NIP)

2. NIP-85: Trusted Assertions

or, stated another way:

1. math

2. physics

Replying to

Avi Burra

nostr:nprofile1qqs2m82zyqlayjqw5tjuf3j9jwszwuy2a03tq24xp0tmr4nxm2jmprgpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtcprfmhxue69uhkummnw3ezu7n9vfjkget99e3kcmm4vshsyzk6nq block 133 confirmed.

It was a pleasure to have nostr:nprofile1qqsw2feday2t6vqh2hzrnwywd9v6g0yayejgx8cf83g7n3ue594pqtcpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsz8rhwden5te0dehhxarj9e3xjarrda5kuetj9eek7cmfv9kqpuetl5 on the show to talk about his journey and all the exciting developments in web-of-trust on nostr.

More info soon on the upcoming #WotAThon and the prize pool 👀

https://fountain.fm/episode/zztOIngx6H7odhl3dFrT

I enjoyed it very much. Thank you Avi for having me!

Now LFG!! 🔥

david 3mo ago

GM nostr! ☕️ ⛅️

Replying to

Erik

GM LEGENDS ☀️☀️☀️

gm! ☕️

I know of two nostr profile keyword search services that use some kind of WoT score to stratify results:

nostr:npub1th6r23tltjuy6r498z90hlg092yx0ddk5a700xdkytdqjgfhmrysceymrz which calculates a trust score, although I’m not sure how.

nostr:npub176p7sup477k5738qhxx0hk2n0cty2k5je5uvalzvkvwmw4tltmeqw7vgup ‘s npub.world which uses personalized pagerank

What other similar services are there?

#asknostr

nostr:npub1v6z4srj4ktch4f3ee9ze2zp7ml4n9rshttmntpamfed0nvpev5fszzuq49

Would be interesting to set up a routine to request large volume FOIA and see where we get redactions or other forms of pushback. Like all congressional email correspondences. Put out a monthly report called “I don’t know what they’re hiding, but here’s where they’re hiding it”. Or even better, have AI do the analysis and update the report in real time.

nostr:npub1clk6vc9xhjp8q5cws262wuf2eh4zuvwupft03hy4ttqqnm7e0jrq3upup9

Just tried GPT-5 on windsurf. Impressive.

Replying to

how can I mark a report for deletion?

#asknostr

david 6mo ago

Think I just managed to do it using #nostrudel - the Swiss Army knife of nostr!!

Replying to

Victor Stabile

Where can I learn more about it? Is it open source?

david 6mo ago

Yes to open source - check out the link in my bio (straycat.brainstorm.social) to see an older version of Brainstorm and a link to the github repo. A lot of features are live, including a table with PageRank and GrapeRank scores for about 350k pubkeys and lists of reported users that are curated by your Grapevine. Imagine using tags instead of reports, and we’re getting close to genuinely decentralized curation of any arbitrary list. The main issue I’m working on right now is how to keep the neo4j graph database current without running into memory issues and crashing of the graph db. (Gotta hate java!! 🤦🏻‍♂️ 😝) So I don’t recommend spinning up your own Brainstorm yet. But hopefully soon!!!

Replying to

rabble

I think we need to base it off of user interaction and activity not follow graphs. But you can build it with the follow graph and lists and see how it works. It just feels like the way things were done a decade ago. Which will work for somethings fine.

david 6mo ago

We don’t have to choose between follows vs user interactions vs something else. Our trust graphs are ultimately going to incorporate all sources of data available to us: follows, mutes, reports, reactions, replies, zaps, etc.

The key to making this work is a step that I like to call interpretation: find some raw data sources (like replies and other user interactions), execute a script that translates the raw data into a standardized format that is ready to be digested by your trust score calculation engine. This is how GrapeRank works.

My goal is to create personalized WoT relays that use GrapeRank to calculate contextual trust scores, with interpretations tailored to fit your personal preferences and beliefs.

Replying to

mar

So sad, there's nowhere to input my npub to check my score.

david 10mo ago

We have all grown accustomed to the idea of global reputation scores. But I think we will see — are already seeing in nostr — a change in focus and mindset from global to personalized WoT scores. Your npub doesn’t have a personalized WoT score until you specify the observer npub. You have to ask: what is your npub’s score, as calculated from some other npub’s perspective.

Ultimately, the access to sophisticated, contextual, provable, personalized WoT scores is going to unlock value in ways that we’ve never experienced or perhaps even imagined.

Replying to