Reading the comments below make me feel like I should maybe be expected to already know what nostr is. But anyway, I don't and reading this article, it felt like it just suddenly cut off at the end.
It explained all the traditional approaches, which are all able to help discoverability and shareability of data between servers, and then says "the solution is relays" and then describes something that doesn't seem to be relaying anything. It sounds like a single dumb, untrusted message store on a single server that doesn't relay anything anywhere. It even specifically says "Relays don’t talk to each other, and users only need to join a small number of relays to gain autonomy—at least two, and certainly less than a dozen".
Not sure where the less than a dozen relay bit comes from. Are they expecting clients to do all the relaying between the relays? If so, wouldn't you get every relay getting pummeled by a load of clients simultaneously, all trying to push the same message. It sounds like the complete opposite of what you actually want. The article seems to just stop short at exactly the point when it should say how what they're proposing actually works.
Why would "every relay getting pummeled by a load of clients simultaneously, all trying to push the same message"?
Relays get one client pushing one message. That one message is pushed to multiple relays. To your own preferred relays, as well as to the preferred relays of others who are involved in the conversation, as well as to a couple of global relays for easy discoverability.
These global relays are useful, but are interchangeable and totally replaceable. As soon as you've connected with someone you can retrieve their updates, because you know their preferred relays, and can query them directly.
In this way Nostr has the benefits of centralised networks for discoverability, federated networks for communities, and private individual web site for p2p and archival purposes.
Nostr is one of those thought-terminating cults, you know, identical to "blockchain solves this" or "AGI solves this".
And "Nostr can't be censored" is, of course, a statement identical to "Blockchain solves all consensus problems" and "AI can do anything better than a human."
P2P with end-to-end encryption over relays existed in 2001 (e.g. Groove, Mojo Nation) and wasn't invented by Nostr.
Nostr is so simple because it handwaves away the fact that everybody seems to use the same small set of relays and there's nothing stopping them from censoring the network. I'm also not aware of any incentives for the relay operators either.
This exactly. Worth mentioning that "censoring" can occur in any of a number of ways; blocking select traffic, slowing select traffic, "forgetting" specific nodes, redirecting other nodes at will, performing MITM attacks (if the protocol isn't secure), etc etc.
Also, beyond just no positive incentives, there are nontrivial negatives... they're hubs for an entire network, which can be a lot of traffic and bandwidth if peers are sharing anything other than text. That's a potentially significant cost for literally just being a dumb router. The idea of charging for this doesn't make sense... you don't choose a router, it's automatic based on location, so there's no incentive for quality. That ends up being a race to the bottom, which there's no room for arbitrage; prices are driven down to near-zero profit.
Abuse-wise, the model is fundamentally flawed. Economically, the idea kinda works so long as hub traffic is low enough to be swallowed in background noise for whoever manages the hub. Beyond that the model breaks pretty quickly.
You are correct that it existed well before, the difference is that it was always complicated to use. Heck, we have been able to send PGP emails since almost 30 years ago.
The innovative concept is that npub/nsec along with sending notes is trivially simple. The content does not need to encrypted, there is a huge value on publishing clear text messages that are crypto-verifiable. You also didn't had this feature on groove and others. I'd argue that NOSTR has indeed pioneered them into mainstream.
Nostr has the benefits of centralised networks for discoverability, federated networks for communities, and private individual web site for p2p and archival purposes.
As I have said in other replies to this post, read up on the outbox model. Global relays are useful, but are interchangeable and totally replaceable. As soon as you've connected with someone you can retrieve their updates, because you know their preferred relays, and can query them directly.
And there are incentives to running a global or community relay. Read up on Zaps. With Nostr, you can give real value via the lightning network, and it is built into the protocol. This allows you to charge for usage if you so desire. And then there's all the other reasons why people run community web sites or global services.
Nowadays a NOSTR "relay" isn't exactly a relay any longer, is it?
Should likely be called a "database server" since it's main purpose is to host user data and perform queries over it. A relay is something connecting two devices and makes a best effort to get out of their way.
Nevertheless: NOSTR is the most exciting social network that I've seen in the past 20 years. The concept of owning the keys without a blockchain associated enables not just decentralization, it also permits a complete offline functioning to login, view private messages and so much more that isn't possible from any other popular social network predecessor.
In fairness here, when it comes to large distributed networks, this type of scaling is generally unacceptable.
But yes i agree its really sloppy for them to say exponential. I'd actually call it linear since what matters (mostly) is how many connections each node has to do, not the total number of connections in the system.
Nonetheless imagine if email worked by making a connection to every computer in the world to check if they had mail for you. It would obviously not work.
Every social media platform needs to a solution to:
1. Content discovery
2. Spam
3. Content moderation
I can see relays offering unique solutions to each one. But now they are more than just dumb servers.
You get to the point where you might as well just write posts locally then submit them to X, Facebook, etc. You get the same result. And if you include a cryptographic signature with each post, you can prove you are the same person across the different platforms.
NOSTR is built to behave like existing platforms when desired. You are forgetting the fundamental difference that brought NOSTR to life: your identity and your texts being verifiable as yours.
NOSTR was a response to the situation where virtually all other social media platforms could basically block your identity and delete all your posts. There is no such drastic possibility at this platform. Sure enough that relays might refuse to receive messages from a user and delete notes from their servers but they will never be capable of silencing that user and he can continue sending his (verifiable) messages to any other relays out there in the internet. Followers of that person will continue to read his texts without disturbance, which is quite relevant when not long ago you'd see large groups of people de-platformed when refusing to inject toxic substances on their bodies.
It is a world of difference between centralized/federated platforms to NOSTR where your freedom to write messages as yourself can never be taken away.
"Boom. Same as Nostr, but with existing platforms" - Except without the ability to give and receive real value via zaps, and at the risk of being censored, and losing your entire audience at the whim of the network operators.
Spam is basically a solved issue. There's both proof of work and paid relays, not to mention web or trust. It has been at absolute worst a minor annoyance.
There's plenty of ways to discover content on Nostr, from hashtags to channels to location based chats to just following some interesting people. It's perhaps not as frictionless as X, but imho that's a feature not a bug.
Spam and content moderation are basically the same thing. In both cases it's hiding things from the user that the user didn't ask for or want to see.
Unless by spam you mean denial of service attacks. Which should probably be a point of its own anyway. It's the main killer of the decentralized internet currently.
Yeah, true, but now you have to manage 5 accounts on the 5 major social networks, all with different rules, format, public, moderation guidelines. It can be done but it starts to sound like a job.
For who might be pulled in by the vague title, not knowing what a nostr is, thinking this article has anything to do with evolution - it has nothing to do with evolution or nature. Not one example of nature trying to evolve a nostr is descibed.
Maybe like... the author thought a nostr is similar to, I dunno, a pack or tribe or something?
It's clearly a tongue in cheek joke about the progression of projects with similar goals that reach imperfect outcomes, with the implicit assumption that Nostr represents the ideal solution.
There was a “nature keeps evolving crabs” meme that was floating around a while back, I think it is a reference to that. I was also disappointed by the lack of nature, evolution, and crabs in the article.
Normies manage their house keys just fine. Obviously crypto keys come with different challenges but that's a UX problem. People losing their house keys is not generally an Earth shattering event. Losing a crypto key doesn't have to be either.
A wallet is easier to lose than a bank vault, but it also holds less money for the same reason. Crypto keys can be designed the same way, with high importance keys managed by safer means like m of n schemes mixed with traditional "hard" storage in geographically distributed safe deposit boxes or whatever, while less important keys can be treated in a more relaxed fashion.
I feel projects like nostr ignore inherent human requirements for social networks. This is a striking quote from their landing page:
"Nostr doesn't subscribe to political ideals of "free speech" — it simply recognizes that different people have different morals and preferences and each server, being privately owned, can follow their own criteria for rejecting content as they please and users are free to choose what to read and from where."
Their statement underlines the fact that nostr is a stream of dirty sewage and they want users to submit their valuable user-created content into this sewage. Then they turn around and say that the sewage is not a problem because you can filter it and even use it as drinking water later on!
I don't see how a person with real-life social rank and social capital will sign up to something like this, or be willing to maintain a technical interface to the "stream of different morals".
You'd need to put immense trust into the "filtering" process so that you are not involuntarily exposed to rubbish. And on the other hand your valuable user-generated content could be showing up in another context with your name attached, directly next to some extremely degenerate trash created by "people with different morals" as nostr calls it. Advertisers have big problems when their brands are advertised next to problematic topics, it is the same with people.
How can you rationalize this as a good value proposition? People want to impress an audience with their user-generated content. And you only want to impress someone you look up to.
If I could sign up to a social network of people who can put a nail into the wall, take a daily shower, brush their teeth, and live in a democratic country I would immediately do so. If I want to get exposed to "different morals" I just open any of the other existing social networks. Until then I'm stuck here :P
"Each server, being privately owned, can follow their own criteria for rejecting content as they please and users are free to choose what to read and from where."
Doesn't this same line of thinking apply to the Internet as a whole? Couldn't your question of "Why would anyone use Nostr?" equally be asked for "Why would anyone use a web browser?"
One could easily test the author's conviction on "rejecting content as they please" by spamming them with horrible stuff for a few months and the author would learn why 100% of content moderation should not be pushed on the individual user.
It depends on if you frame it as a service versus as infrastructure that a service uses. The public roadways are similar streams of unfiltered sewage yet we see billboards along them and large businesses that care about appearances connect to them. Meanwhile gated communities also exist but are far from the norm.
> showing up in another context with your name attached, directly next to some extremely degenerate trash
Check out police bodycam footage on youtube for real world examples of exactly this.
> You'd need to put immense trust into the "filtering" process
I think their audience for that page is people who want to implement those filters. It's not like you can log into nostr and start browsing any more than you can log into https and start browsing.
I don't appreciate the content either but a protocol that doesn't create high value targets for corruption (e.g. certificate authorities) is useful independent of the regrettable vibes that its fan club has. You're not going to catch their cooties if your public key is database-adjacent to someone else's.
i'm booted from facebook. does that really mean that i have no "real-life social rank" anymore?
in fact, the further mainstream social networks evolve, the more social rank it started to bring not to be there, and/or having been booted. it's early on this path, but i started to notice the signs.
> If I want to get exposed to "different morals" I just open any of the other existing social networks. Until then I'm stuck here
I think the point is that "opening all other existing social networks" to get a rounded point of view has immense friction, especially in an enshittified world. Even with supposedly non-enshittified solutions like Mastodon, for example, you have to subscribe with different users to distinct instances that allow only a subset of the network and manage that for you. They can alter their banlist behind your back, for starters, so you have to manage that as well.
The proposal of Nostr is that you can follow as many relays as you want, in the same app, with the same user. Compare to having separate accounts for Facebook, X, Threads, Instagram, Telegram, TikTok, YouTube, <woke-friendly Mastodon instance> and <reactionary-friendly Mastodon instance>.
By the “sewage” analogy you are expressing the assumption that the vast majority of what people write is outright toxic and that being exposed to it is actively hurtful.
My experience on the internet does not reflect this, this is a very pessimistic view of people, bordering on perl-clutching.
Most raw user generated feeds are not great sure, but it’s mostly mediocre jokes and mildly provocative takes from bored trolls, and that’s usually a loud minority. Most people either lurk or make a modest effort now and then, particularly in niche communities like this where most people aware of it will already be fairly deeply immersed in tech. People have better things to do than to constantly be aggressively offensive, I imagine it gets old fast, and you really need to go out of your way to write something that legitimately hurts an adult.
Sure of course there are corners that are cesspits of hate, but they tend to band together and it is quite hard to bump into them accidentally. And when you do, you just feel slightly disgusted for a second, turn back and forget about it.
Some moderation is critical, but it usually needs to only be enforced for a few bad apples, most people act with decency and common sense, even when anonymous. And yes including people with lesser means and/or from shitty countries. People from different cultures are mostly the same when you peal away superficial customs, and I find much more in common with someone of my age with similar interests from the other side of the world, than with a grumpy old neighbor frankly. At least that’s my experience.
The problem is that (to use the comparisons given in the article) Nostr is a statically peered superpeer.
All the "downsides" of a superpeer (as the article says - "centralisation with extra steps") but without the benefit of dynamic peering thereby resulting in incomplete routing.
i.e. by its nature Nostr results in a fragmented network, which ends up looking very much like the federated network, albeit more interconnected.
Thats not necessarily a bad thing, but its a bit of a confused article, IMHO.
That's true. The hope is that users will favor generalist / unbiased relays (less fragmentation by design) rather than heavily biased / restricted ones. Maybe even fund them: I will pay you as long as you don't start banning large swathes of the network just because you don't like what they say.
Users you follow can also advertise relays behind the scenes, so it's more probable that, if you follow a coherent set of users, you will converge on a coherent subset of relays that doesn't really feel fragmented.
I tried nostr once and I was very impressed by the speed of loading up the timeline, including the pictures. I wasn't interested in the content though, which was mainly about cryptos, so I didn't pursue more
It is all wishful thinking and beside the point. Pubkey auth and normies do not mix. They lose their keys, their identity, their history, then back to zuck or elon’s plantation where things can be administratively resolved.
Disagree though, people manage keys just fine, or they can be thought.
But even if there are people in the world that never get it, it could be outsourced to a central identity provider that manages your key and messages. For the end user they would have a user/password combo they can reset.
If the network becomes more popular someone will definitely build something like that.
The technical capabilities (remote signers, bunkers, ...) already exist
With millions of daily users Mainline DHT is the most successful truly decentralized social network.
Successful decentralization is about incentives, and Mainline DHT's incentive is downloading digital media for free.
I asked this in another comment, but why aren't we using DHTs for peer discovery for social apps? The ratio mechanic provides incentives in the file sharing realm, but you need different incentives for the threaded chat realm.
We already see "paid relays" and relays that filter certain content, even as small as nostr is today. I think the end state, if it manages to really catch on, is going to be as "oligarchical" as mastodon or other federated networks today - just via relays instead of via homeservers.
A step in the right direction for sure! But I don't feel like Nostr is the final target that nature is shooting for here.
The solution to bad relays is to just use different relays. Changing your relays is just a matter of publishing a new 10002 relay list, and optionally copying over your old notes (or reseeding them from local backups).
"Take some ordinary, off-the-shelf servers. Treat them as dumb, untrusted pipes. Their job is just to relay information. They don’t own the keys—you own your keys. You sign messages with your key, then post them to one or more relays. Other users follow one or more relays. When they get a message, they use your key to verify you sent it. That’s it!"
> The combination of layered system and uniform interface constraints induces architectural properties similar to those of the uniform pipe-and-filter style.
See also Figure 5-8.
The dissertation is all about deriving that network style.
The key thing is that all messages are signed and have a few standard fields, making them easy to replicate across many relays while maintaining the ability to verify their origin. And the second thing being that it is based on websockets, allowing the client to maintain an open connection and have new data be pushed instantly rather than relying on polling.
Something that I feel is missing in this conversation is that IMO a multi relay architecture like Nostr is not trying to solve moderation or remove it altogether: it's trying to make activist moderators less relevant.
Activists, in this case, are people with a social mission that they deem it's more important than any other considerations: they think ideology K is dangerous and they are trying to prevent as many as possible recipients to be exposed to it. They will report you on Threads or Facebook to ban you, if you speak in favor of K. They will send e-mails to your employer. They will even send bomb threats to venues where you gather to celebrate K. If they are moderators, they will not only ban you if mention K in a positive light, but they will try to avoid other people from hearing K-speech as well. If they run a Mastodon instance, for example, they will have a ban list of other instances that are K-friendly, and they will make sure that, if you are using their instance, you can't see any posts about K. If you're curious about K, now you have to do the inconvenient dance of switching between two instances that in theory should be federated, but in practice are two different networks that don't speak with each other. This is good for activists, but bad for you, if you don't want to take sides on a culture war you don't really care about.
A relay-based architecture makes the work of activists a bit less relevant: they can still run their instance and ban every mention of K, of course, but now you can subscribe to their instance AND another instance that doesn't ban people who speak fondly of K, and they can't limit or control that in any way. In theory (and everything is a bit theoretical at the moment), relays that heavily censor certain topics are less preferable to a generic public than relays that don't do that, so activist moderators will pay their effort to shape discourse with less participation from users. Of course, if relays ban something universally considered bad, such as spam, they will have more success than if they ban some heavily divisive point of view that 50% of the public shares. In theory, these controversial actors can even advertise friendly relays without you knowing, and your client can decide to follow them transparently (the intent is "I want content from this user", the behaviour is "follow relays they advertise behind the scenes"). Of course they have to do that before they're banned, but the point is that, for every activist relay that tries to remove K from public discourse, there will always be one or more generalist or counter-activist relay that welcomes K, and you can choose to follow both at the same time, with the same client and the same identity, and nobody can do a damn thing about it.
This is one of those statements that sounds reasonable because K is a variable, but it actually matters what the content of K is. You can start by inserting "CSAM" and work from there, until the police arrive.
It has been long predicted that federated models (like Nostr) just degrade into a few providers that monetize in the same way they would if the network was centralized. It's the worst of both worlds between centralization and real decentralization — which (unfortunately to the haters) almost certain requires Byzantine fault tolerant consensus (blockchains).
Nostr doesn't even have the decoupling afforded by what we typically think of when we think of federated networks (email, activitypub, matrix). If you and another party aren't using the same relay, there is 0 way for you to interact. It assumes either you pre-agree on a relay (sticky defaults encouraging centralization) or shotgun messages to many relays (economies of scale encourgaing centralization). The protocol explicitly forbids relays from forwarding to each other.
Nostr is a very simple protocol that could have been invented in essence in 1995. There's a reason it wasn't invented until recently, because it's difficult to build robust protocols with good guarantees about discoverability and reliability with a foundation that is as limited as it is.
It's a little different to federated networks like GNU Social/Mastadon since the data and the relay are separate. You can post the same data to multiple relays and read from many relays simultaneously. Meaning you aren't tied to picking a single relay with network effects, and although a big relay going offline might cause temporary chaos, it's fairly easy for new ones to be set up and added to clients, without having to explicitly move things like accounts and so on.
The presentation of blockchains as some kind of historical imperative would be downright Marx-like if it weren't for the primary difference that Marx put some thought into justifying his position. It's eminently possible to cryptographically secure software without lugging around an immutable distributed database because you're emotionally invested in the idea.
the blockchain is useful in solving double-spending problems in purely p2p applications. Aside from cryptocurrency, take for example name systems like namecoin or ENS: these systems need a way of reconciling who owns what, which involves synchronizing some data across the whole network.
It is inefficient, but the inefficiency seems to lie at some fundamental problem with p2p. Centralized systems need to do the same synchronization, but between fewer actors, and may outsource some of the verification for an exponential increase in speed.
- how well does such an ecosystem resist enshittification? Given some of the other comments, Nostr itself would not. However, is that true for every relay networks?
- does the Willow protocol have the same basic constraints? I know willow works with user-owned keys, but can it also organize as something similar to relays?
- local-first apps organized this way would be an interesting ecosystem
- how well would this work with keyhive? (Local first access control)
I think the people with the soundest minds are the ones who are willing to accept that the idea of social networks as they used to be are going the way of the TRL countdown.
And what they’re about to become is going to be something more like political yard signs.
ralferoo|2 months ago
It explained all the traditional approaches, which are all able to help discoverability and shareability of data between servers, and then says "the solution is relays" and then describes something that doesn't seem to be relaying anything. It sounds like a single dumb, untrusted message store on a single server that doesn't relay anything anywhere. It even specifically says "Relays don’t talk to each other, and users only need to join a small number of relays to gain autonomy—at least two, and certainly less than a dozen".
Not sure where the less than a dozen relay bit comes from. Are they expecting clients to do all the relaying between the relays? If so, wouldn't you get every relay getting pummeled by a load of clients simultaneously, all trying to push the same message. It sounds like the complete opposite of what you actually want. The article seems to just stop short at exactly the point when it should say how what they're proposing actually works.
shark_laser|2 months ago
Why would "every relay getting pummeled by a load of clients simultaneously, all trying to push the same message"?
Relays get one client pushing one message. That one message is pushed to multiple relays. To your own preferred relays, as well as to the preferred relays of others who are involved in the conversation, as well as to a couple of global relays for easy discoverability.
These global relays are useful, but are interchangeable and totally replaceable. As soon as you've connected with someone you can retrieve their updates, because you know their preferred relays, and can query them directly.
In this way Nostr has the benefits of centralised networks for discoverability, federated networks for communities, and private individual web site for p2p and archival purposes.
fiatjaf|2 months ago
- You publish to, say, 3 relays.
- I follow you or want to browse your content for any reason.
- I connect to your 3 relays and fetch your content.
If I want to follow someone else and they publish to other relays I fetch their posts from those relays.
If some of your relays start censoring you you can move to other relays, or run your own, and I'll start fetching your content from those.
There's an interactive animation demo at https://how-nostr-works.pages.dev/#/outbox that explains it.
immibis|2 months ago
And "Nostr can't be censored" is, of course, a statement identical to "Blockchain solves all consensus problems" and "AI can do anything better than a human."
wmf|2 months ago
Nostr is so simple because it handwaves away the fact that everybody seems to use the same small set of relays and there's nothing stopping them from censoring the network. I'm also not aware of any incentives for the relay operators either.
eykanal|2 months ago
Also, beyond just no positive incentives, there are nontrivial negatives... they're hubs for an entire network, which can be a lot of traffic and bandwidth if peers are sharing anything other than text. That's a potentially significant cost for literally just being a dumb router. The idea of charging for this doesn't make sense... you don't choose a router, it's automatic based on location, so there's no incentive for quality. That ends up being a race to the bottom, which there's no room for arbitrage; prices are driven down to near-zero profit.
Abuse-wise, the model is fundamentally flawed. Economically, the idea kinda works so long as hub traffic is low enough to be swallowed in background noise for whoever manages the hub. Beyond that the model breaks pretty quickly.
nunobrito|2 months ago
The innovative concept is that npub/nsec along with sending notes is trivially simple. The content does not need to encrypted, there is a huge value on publishing clear text messages that are crypto-verifiable. You also didn't had this feature on groove and others. I'd argue that NOSTR has indeed pioneered them into mainstream.
treyd|2 months ago
shark_laser|2 months ago
As I have said in other replies to this post, read up on the outbox model. Global relays are useful, but are interchangeable and totally replaceable. As soon as you've connected with someone you can retrieve their updates, because you know their preferred relays, and can query them directly.
And there are incentives to running a global or community relay. Read up on Zaps. With Nostr, you can give real value via the lightning network, and it is built into the protocol. This allows you to charge for usage if you so desire. And then there's all the other reasons why people run community web sites or global services.
nunobrito|2 months ago
Should likely be called a "database server" since it's main purpose is to host user data and perform queries over it. A relay is something connecting two devices and makes a best effort to get out of their way.
Nevertheless: NOSTR is the most exciting social network that I've seen in the past 20 years. The concept of owning the keys without a blockchain associated enables not just decentralization, it also permits a complete offline functioning to login, view private messages and so much more that isn't possible from any other popular social network predecessor.
Retr0id|2 months ago
FabHK|2 months ago
> N^2 scaling: if every fed has to talk to every other fed to exchange messages, the number of connections will scale exponentially
No. That's quadratic growth, which is a fairly mild form of polynomial growth, which is much much much slower than exponential growth.
bawolff|2 months ago
But yes i agree its really sloppy for them to say exponential. I'd actually call it linear since what matters (mostly) is how many connections each node has to do, not the total number of connections in the system.
Nonetheless imagine if email worked by making a connection to every computer in the world to check if they had mail for you. It would obviously not work.
pyrolistical|2 months ago
1. Content discovery
2. Spam
3. Content moderation
I can see relays offering unique solutions to each one. But now they are more than just dumb servers.
You get to the point where you might as well just write posts locally then submit them to X, Facebook, etc. You get the same result. And if you include a cryptographic signature with each post, you can prove you are the same person across the different platforms.
Boom. Same as Nostr, but with existing platforms
nunobrito|2 months ago
NOSTR was a response to the situation where virtually all other social media platforms could basically block your identity and delete all your posts. There is no such drastic possibility at this platform. Sure enough that relays might refuse to receive messages from a user and delete notes from their servers but they will never be capable of silencing that user and he can continue sending his (verifiable) messages to any other relays out there in the internet. Followers of that person will continue to read his texts without disturbance, which is quite relevant when not long ago you'd see large groups of people de-platformed when refusing to inject toxic substances on their bodies.
It is a world of difference between centralized/federated platforms to NOSTR where your freedom to write messages as yourself can never be taken away.
shark_laser|2 months ago
Spam is basically a solved issue. There's both proof of work and paid relays, not to mention web or trust. It has been at absolute worst a minor annoyance.
There's plenty of ways to discover content on Nostr, from hashtags to channels to location based chats to just following some interesting people. It's perhaps not as frictionless as X, but imho that's a feature not a bug.
vintermann|2 months ago
Unless by spam you mean denial of service attacks. Which should probably be a point of its own anyway. It's the main killer of the decentralized internet currently.
curtisblaine|2 months ago
WastedCucumber|2 months ago
Maybe like... the author thought a nostr is similar to, I dunno, a pack or tribe or something?
viccis|2 months ago
CGamesPlay|2 months ago
immibis|2 months ago
nl|2 months ago
bawolff|2 months ago
(Whether the author is convincing on the other hand...)
bawolff|2 months ago
Or if you really care about the crypto piece, then freenet.
rglullis|2 months ago
strbean|2 months ago
It's crazy that some functionality on e.g. the IRS website requires me to verify my identity using a private company (ID.me).
noman-land|2 months ago
A wallet is easier to lose than a bank vault, but it also holds less money for the same reason. Crypto keys can be designed the same way, with high importance keys managed by safer means like m of n schemes mixed with traditional "hard" storage in geographically distributed safe deposit boxes or whatever, while less important keys can be treated in a more relaxed fashion.
bawolff|2 months ago
So i think there are viable solutions here. It mostly just means having an app to manage the keys for you.
sneak|2 months ago
sneak’s law: “Users can not and will not securely manage key material.”
beeflet|2 months ago
bflesch|2 months ago
"Nostr doesn't subscribe to political ideals of "free speech" — it simply recognizes that different people have different morals and preferences and each server, being privately owned, can follow their own criteria for rejecting content as they please and users are free to choose what to read and from where."
Their statement underlines the fact that nostr is a stream of dirty sewage and they want users to submit their valuable user-created content into this sewage. Then they turn around and say that the sewage is not a problem because you can filter it and even use it as drinking water later on!
I don't see how a person with real-life social rank and social capital will sign up to something like this, or be willing to maintain a technical interface to the "stream of different morals".
You'd need to put immense trust into the "filtering" process so that you are not involuntarily exposed to rubbish. And on the other hand your valuable user-generated content could be showing up in another context with your name attached, directly next to some extremely degenerate trash created by "people with different morals" as nostr calls it. Advertisers have big problems when their brands are advertised next to problematic topics, it is the same with people.
How can you rationalize this as a good value proposition? People want to impress an audience with their user-generated content. And you only want to impress someone you look up to.
If I could sign up to a social network of people who can put a nail into the wall, take a daily shower, brush their teeth, and live in a democratic country I would immediately do so. If I want to get exposed to "different morals" I just open any of the other existing social networks. Until then I'm stuck here :P
csense|2 months ago
Doesn't this same line of thinking apply to the Internet as a whole? Couldn't your question of "Why would anyone use Nostr?" equally be asked for "Why would anyone use a web browser?"
AuthAuth|2 months ago
fc417fc802|2 months ago
> showing up in another context with your name attached, directly next to some extremely degenerate trash
Check out police bodycam footage on youtube for real world examples of exactly this.
__MatrixMan__|2 months ago
I think their audience for that page is people who want to implement those filters. It's not like you can log into nostr and start browsing any more than you can log into https and start browsing.
I don't appreciate the content either but a protocol that doesn't create high value targets for corruption (e.g. certificate authorities) is useful independent of the regrettable vibes that its fan club has. You're not going to catch their cooties if your public key is database-adjacent to someone else's.
attila-lendvai|2 months ago
in fact, the further mainstream social networks evolve, the more social rank it started to bring not to be there, and/or having been booted. it's early on this path, but i started to notice the signs.
curtisblaine|2 months ago
I think the point is that "opening all other existing social networks" to get a rounded point of view has immense friction, especially in an enshittified world. Even with supposedly non-enshittified solutions like Mastodon, for example, you have to subscribe with different users to distinct instances that allow only a subset of the network and manage that for you. They can alter their banlist behind your back, for starters, so you have to manage that as well.
The proposal of Nostr is that you can follow as many relays as you want, in the same app, with the same user. Compare to having separate accounts for Facebook, X, Threads, Instagram, Telegram, TikTok, YouTube, <woke-friendly Mastodon instance> and <reactionary-friendly Mastodon instance>.
oersted|2 months ago
My experience on the internet does not reflect this, this is a very pessimistic view of people, bordering on perl-clutching.
Most raw user generated feeds are not great sure, but it’s mostly mediocre jokes and mildly provocative takes from bored trolls, and that’s usually a loud minority. Most people either lurk or make a modest effort now and then, particularly in niche communities like this where most people aware of it will already be fairly deeply immersed in tech. People have better things to do than to constantly be aggressively offensive, I imagine it gets old fast, and you really need to go out of your way to write something that legitimately hurts an adult.
Sure of course there are corners that are cesspits of hate, but they tend to band together and it is quite hard to bump into them accidentally. And when you do, you just feel slightly disgusted for a second, turn back and forget about it.
Some moderation is critical, but it usually needs to only be enforced for a few bad apples, most people act with decency and common sense, even when anonymous. And yes including people with lesser means and/or from shitty countries. People from different cultures are mostly the same when you peal away superficial customs, and I find much more in common with someone of my age with similar interests from the other side of the world, than with a grumpy old neighbor frankly. At least that’s my experience.
supermatt|2 months ago
All the "downsides" of a superpeer (as the article says - "centralisation with extra steps") but without the benefit of dynamic peering thereby resulting in incomplete routing.
i.e. by its nature Nostr results in a fragmented network, which ends up looking very much like the federated network, albeit more interconnected.
Thats not necessarily a bad thing, but its a bit of a confused article, IMHO.
curtisblaine|2 months ago
Users you follow can also advertise relays behind the scenes, so it's more probable that, if you follow a coherent set of users, you will converge on a coherent subset of relays that doesn't really feel fragmented.
poulpy123|2 months ago
krautburglar|2 months ago
digitalbase|2 months ago
Disagree though, people manage keys just fine, or they can be thought.
But even if there are people in the world that never get it, it could be outsourced to a central identity provider that manages your key and messages. For the end user they would have a user/password combo they can reset.
If the network becomes more popular someone will definitely build something like that.
The technical capabilities (remote signers, bunkers, ...) already exist
int32_64|2 months ago
bawolff|2 months ago
I think the blogosphere is the most succesful distributed social network. People just dont like viewing it that way.
noman-land|2 months ago
beeflet|2 months ago
EgregiousCube|2 months ago
A step in the right direction for sure! But I don't feel like Nostr is the final target that nature is shooting for here.
decoding|2 months ago
digitalbase|2 months ago
noman-land|2 months ago
camgunz|2 months ago
This is NNTP.
gaigalas|2 months ago
Sounds like REST. The original REST, not the botched CRUD that companies pushed for.
https://roy.gbiv.com/pubs/dissertation/fielding_dissertation...
> The combination of layered system and uniform interface constraints induces architectural properties similar to those of the uniform pipe-and-filter style.
See also Figure 5-8.
The dissertation is all about deriving that network style.
sharperguy|2 months ago
curtisblaine|2 months ago
Activists, in this case, are people with a social mission that they deem it's more important than any other considerations: they think ideology K is dangerous and they are trying to prevent as many as possible recipients to be exposed to it. They will report you on Threads or Facebook to ban you, if you speak in favor of K. They will send e-mails to your employer. They will even send bomb threats to venues where you gather to celebrate K. If they are moderators, they will not only ban you if mention K in a positive light, but they will try to avoid other people from hearing K-speech as well. If they run a Mastodon instance, for example, they will have a ban list of other instances that are K-friendly, and they will make sure that, if you are using their instance, you can't see any posts about K. If you're curious about K, now you have to do the inconvenient dance of switching between two instances that in theory should be federated, but in practice are two different networks that don't speak with each other. This is good for activists, but bad for you, if you don't want to take sides on a culture war you don't really care about.
A relay-based architecture makes the work of activists a bit less relevant: they can still run their instance and ban every mention of K, of course, but now you can subscribe to their instance AND another instance that doesn't ban people who speak fondly of K, and they can't limit or control that in any way. In theory (and everything is a bit theoretical at the moment), relays that heavily censor certain topics are less preferable to a generic public than relays that don't do that, so activist moderators will pay their effort to shape discourse with less participation from users. Of course, if relays ban something universally considered bad, such as spam, they will have more success than if they ban some heavily divisive point of view that 50% of the public shares. In theory, these controversial actors can even advertise friendly relays without you knowing, and your client can decide to follow them transparently (the intent is "I want content from this user", the behaviour is "follow relays they advertise behind the scenes"). Of course they have to do that before they're banned, but the point is that, for every activist relay that tries to remove K from public discourse, there will always be one or more generalist or counter-activist relay that welcomes K, and you can choose to follow both at the same time, with the same client and the same identity, and nobody can do a damn thing about it.
pjc50|2 months ago
lazzlazzlazz|2 months ago
Same thing over and over again.
treyd|2 months ago
Nostr is a very simple protocol that could have been invented in essence in 1995. There's a reason it wasn't invented until recently, because it's difficult to build robust protocols with good guarantees about discoverability and reliability with a foundation that is as limited as it is.
sharperguy|2 months ago
__MatrixMan__|2 months ago
stonogo|2 months ago
beeflet|2 months ago
It is inefficient, but the inefficiency seems to lie at some fundamental problem with p2p. Centralized systems need to do the same synchronization, but between fewer actors, and may outsource some of the verification for an exponential increase in speed.
hosh|2 months ago
- how well does such an ecosystem resist enshittification? Given some of the other comments, Nostr itself would not. However, is that true for every relay networks?
- does the Willow protocol have the same basic constraints? I know willow works with user-owned keys, but can it also organize as something similar to relays?
- local-first apps organized this way would be an interesting ecosystem
- how well would this work with keyhive? (Local first access control)
AceJohnny2|2 months ago
On the other hand, what're the economic incentive to run relays? If there are economies of scale, we swiftly go back to the oligarchic model.
leephillips|2 months ago
FUD. I and many others on HN run our own email servers with essentially no delivery problems.
Diti|2 months ago
tolerance|2 months ago
And what they’re about to become is going to be something more like political yard signs.