Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
basantagoswami | 7 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Let's start working on a successor protocol. In doing so, we may figure out the flaws that nostr have, or things that can be improved. I have been meaning to write about what I would do if I were to reinvent nostr from scratch, but we can do a proper protocol specification itself. No one needs to implement it of course, it will just be an exercise for us
▲ ▼
basantagoswami | 7 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Generally, we won't even think about suggesting certain changes to nostr because they will be breaking changes, or because there is already another way of doing that thing (even if the new method is more efficient). But if we start designing from scratch, we don't have those creative limitations
▲ ▼
Mike Dilger | 7 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +4 
 My advice: Take notes. Don't work on it.

Sure, there are a dozen things I would do differently if starting over including using a different elliptic curve, pushing for binary packets, giving relays identities, negotiating new features in-protocol, event kinds being bitflags, having slightly more composibility in some places, etc. But nothing about the way it is now breaks things signficantly.

If you think there is going to be a successor protocol, would you pour your heart and soul into the next nostr project? Probably not. I don't think nostr is broken, so it doesn't require fixing.  I'm all-in on nostr, including starting a new project soon.