Oddbean new post about login | logout I dont know how its implemented or why it adds complexity to the relays, but the very concept of editing or deleting notes shouldn't be contrary to the ideals of uncensorable communication
Nostr is was never about building the "ideal", it was about building a thing that works well enough.
In the sense of "ideals of uncensorable" I didn't mean the implementation needs to be ideal, only that uncensorability is the ideal to strive for.
My point was exactly that trying to get an "ideal" in this case would sacrifice other important values of Nostr, one of them being the practicality. So no, we shouldn't be always "striving for ideals". The ideal social network would be a pure p2p thing with no IPs, no DNS.
Those are implementatiom details. What is the requirement you intend to fulfill with "no IPs and no DNS"?
The DNS system is centralized and prone to censorship. You *can* add other DNS roots, but it doesn't really solve the problem. I suppose systems like Namecoin or ENS might address the problem, if they get traction. Many on Nostr would have a problem with them because they are based on blockchains other than Bitcoin. Personally I have no issue with that, although I don't know what secondary problems they would create. The IP address space is also controlled and censored.
Decentralization > uncensorability? I doubt this is your stand. Nostr is built on IP. Lets suppose they can censor IP and DNS. From what I see, nostr already addresses this risk with its architecture. Again, you jump to solutions but haven't amswered my question. What is the underlying problem that nostr needs to solve? What are the requirements to that solution? Is it to solve the problem that people want to edit their own posts, is it to optimize relay bandwidth or is it to be a decentralized protocol? I doubt it is any of these. I see nostr's primary aim is to enable uncensorable communication with a minimalistic protocol design. Tell me why I'm wrong.
> Lets suppose they can censor IP and DNS. From what I see, nostr already addresses this risk with its architecture. Nostr addresses censorship by relays themselves. But if all involved organizations wanted it, and it's a closed market, they could censor all DNS names and IP addresses used by Nostr relays. Obviously this is hard and unlikely, which is why Nostr does provide (some level of) censorship resistance. > What is the underlying problem that nostr needs to solve? What are the requirements to that solution? From my understanding it's corporate censorship and it mostly does solve that. > I see nostr's primary aim is to enable uncensorable communication with a minimalistic protocol design. I agree. I never suggested allowing edits is against the purpose of Nostr.
>They could censor all DNS and IP addresses that relays use Even over tor ? The simplicity of the protocol is its strength. The JSON can be sent over radio in morse code.
> Even over tor ? If you use Tor to access a clearnet domain, the domain owner is the same as if you access it trough clearnet. If you are referring to .onion domains for hidden services, then obviously that's outside of the scope of the centralized DNS system and does not have these problems.