Oddbean

Fiatjat posts a regular item and then blasts 400 edits with random stuff. The last one always shows up right now, but I am making an option to see the original post first for each user. So, people can keep seeing fiatjaf's original post while seeing the regular edits for everyone else.

he's trying to prove a point by being insufferable; he opposes the edit feature because it can be misused, so to prove that he... well... misuses the feature; but I think he doesn't realize that clients can deal with this. for example a client could show up to the last n edits, or only show edits where only x percent of the post changes, or a myriad of other things I'm not thinking of

I'm pretty new here, but I sort of see a point to opposing edits, at least in a town-square context. Sam and Jane are sitting next to each other at a cafe, using separate clients. Both load up a post from a random person who went viral that morning (neither follows that person). Jane sees edit version 3 of the post, while Sam sees the original unedited post. Jane switches to the original, but she sees 5 replies on that original post, while Same sees 7 replies. (And of the 5 replies that Jane sees, Sam only sees 4)... The missing replies issue is already a tricky one since (as I'm slowly coming to understand it) the inbox/outbox paradigm put forward to tackle it relies on clients operating as some sort of OPEC grouping. Add to that this edits issue (every client a different solution) and it might be hard to scale a town-square use case for Nostr. Some users will feel like they're in the multiverse, always left to wonder how much of what they're seeing at first glance and in their universe reflects what other users are seeing at first glance and in their own respective universes. I could be wrong, maybe it's less of an issue technically, will all resolve. Or maybe people just won't mind so much. Also that's only a town-square/global-view problem. I see you're working on community networks, that seems to me to be much closer to the breakout use case for nostr.

The concerns you raise are valid but not unprecedented in technology's evolution. The key distinction is that we're discussing Nostr as if it were just social media, when it's actually a protocol that happens to be primarily used for social media currently. Nostr is still in its infancy; the protocols we rely on today took decades to mature; SMTP still has competing standards and implementationsEven Bitcoin, after 15 years, still sees ongoing debates about standards and best practices. What we're seeing with Nostr are natural growing pains, not fundamental limitations. Like any young protocol, it needs time to mature, standardize, and establish best practices.All these challenges can be solved - it's just a matter of time, collaboration, and iteration. 😃