I remain squarely in the “No Edit” camp.

I prefer the authenticity of un-edited notes. There’s something raw about them, especially in contrast to the manicured, artificial feel of most social* media nowadays (which means we should probably expect Gen-Z users to prefer No Edit, as well).

For one, typos are not that big of a deal, at least in the microblogging context. If anything, they’re endearing. And I hadn’t even considered the attack risk that Derek is pointing out, before today. 

Furthermore, retracting a bad take with honest accountability is a lot more meaningful than editing or hiding something you wish you hadn’t said.

I don’t imagine a “maximum number of edits” would really gain traction, either. Who picks the number? Do we increase the blocksize (er, I mean, edit count) when more users join the network? 

It just feels antithetical to the “freedom and user choice” ethos of Nostr.

*Outside of social media, it’s possible that other event types, such as long-form notes, or events used for things like healthcare in nostr:npub1hqaz3dlyuhfqhktqchawke39l92jj9nt30dsgh2zvd9z7dv3j3gqpkt56s's NosFabrica, could benefit more from editability.

But even then, there would be issues. One strength of Nostr is that (unlike Bitcoin) we don’t require universal consensus: different relays hold different content, and that’s okay. It’s okay primarily because we know that “1 nost = 1 nost”. This flexibility makes nostr more dynamic and scalable, but it depends in part on No Edits.

Edits would not be universally implemented, so what happens when some clients and some relays implement edits? How does a user verify that a specific signed event is actually the right version? How do relays stay up-to-date, especially if some relays are No Edit on principle and insist on storing and serving the original (or all versions) of a note?

For the more “formal” use cases, perhaps implementing multiple versions of a note could work, where a new (“edited”) note is signed with a reference to a previous version. This would be backward-compatible with clients or users who consider themselves “edit disrespectors” (ha).

If some clients do choose to honor edits, they should give their users the option to ignore the feature, and simply display a so-called “edited note” as a second, separate event with a reference to the original note.**

Because that’s the reality of what transpired, and truth is good. It’s like nostr:npub1rqe7upz9nl4jef9wdyx47vfxnt2g3357tl5s8fpt2vkxwlz2s9cq9w3jdt said: no edits in life.

**Having not reviewed the edit NIP (and I assume there is at least one), it’s possible that this is exactly how it’s intended to be implemented. But even so, it seems clear to me that the drawbacks of editing easily outweigh the benefits. 

No Edits also incentivizes us to write a little more carefully, a little more thoughtfully — a habit that is woefully lacking in traditional social media.

To me, it’s an easy choice. I love the authenticity of unedited notes.

I’m grateful that the nostr:npub18m76awca3y37hkvuneavuw6pjj4525fw90necxmadrvjg0sdy6qsngq955 team has (at least historically) viewed edits this way, as well. I’ll continue to vote with my time, attention, and sats, through my choice of client, and by requesting every version of everyone’s notes from every relay.

All of that said, I would appreciate the opportunity to read a well-laid-out argument in favor of implementing edits. I believe in what I’ve written, but it doesn’t mean I’m right. (“Strong opinions, loosely held”). I could be missing some key technical aspects of Nostr that would satisfy the objections I raised, and I’m here to learn whenever I can.

I want Nostr to win (whatever that means), so I’m a fan of nearly any good-faith efforts to #grownostr 🫡 nostr:note1e4xlux4r4gda2sq50yn5tm8gl2xpq4906xtud72yeuw74c542ggs0xmfpf