Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
Compromised | 7 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 Thank you for explaining.
Regarding the connection to the unreliable and malicious relays what do you think about some sort of reliability checks on relays as an addition? (Historical performance, uptime, responsiveness etc. )
▲ ▼
jb55 | 7 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 yes I think that would be vital for implementing this in a way that would produce reliable outcomes.
▲ ▼
Compromised | 7 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 🤝
▲ ▼
captjack | 7 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 smart users can easily find/ignore bad actors - agency relays 
dumb users need / will stick to default as always.
no need historic perf. - similar WoT or bitcoinmint rating or trust model.  nostrudel has RELAY REVIEW section before.
what if SWAT team comes pull gun on RELAYADMIN HEAD ask him handover all realy log n record ? History of relay doesnot mean it will remain same relay forever
▲ ▼
Mike Dilger | 7 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 HTTP doesn't have any redundancy at this level. Redundancy for websites means using multiple servers on the same IP address usually through network routing tricks. DNS round-robin for example doesn't quite work.

And yet HTTP servers seem to be doing just fine. Relays will become as reliable as websites over time, there is no reason they shoudln't be.

Plus then we have our redundancy of specifying multiple inboxes or multiple outboxes.

So I don't think there is a long-term problem with reliability of relays.

Currently though, sometimes all of somebody's relays are not working properly because nostr is still a work in progress.
▲ ▼
Compromised | 7 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Yeah I also think that those who run relays on here not for fun but to support network will be doing so. So, it should be more stable over the time. Regarding malicious stuff I’m not sure though. How to deal with that ?