Oddbean

It adds an immense amount of complexity that is better left for more specialized applications and use cases. At least for now, kind1 is the common ground everybody has and it should remain that for the foreseeable future, at the basic level it's super easy to get started, easy to read, easy to write, easy to display. If you start publishing kind1 notes with HTML, Markdown, editing capabilities or kind1 notes that depend on custom interpretation of new tags or requiring fetching or other notes for them to be rendered correctly you're breaking that. nostr:nevent1qyghwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tcpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7qghwaehxw309ashgmrpwvhxummnw3ezumrpdejz7qg7waehxw309ahx7um5wgkhqatz9emk2mrvdaexgetj9ehx2ap0qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehgu3wd9hxvme0qydhwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtn0wfskuem9wp5kcmpwv3jhvtcpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6un9d3shjtnhd3m8xtnnwpskxef0qyvhwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnndehhyapwwdhkx6tpdshszxrhwden5te0wfjkccte9e3h2unjv4h8gtnx095j7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yh8qunfd4skctnwv46z7qpqqf4gx2x2gd639jgwqccvgm4p7vlwrfh9t8yej68e2tpa03ay55nq9rygsw

The editing stuff with new events is not bad, but I still don't like it because it breaks everybody that doesn't implement it and puts a high barrier on top of implementing anything that uses kind1. I may be wrong, and I certainly feel like it would be better to get more usage across other kinds and subprotocols other than microblogging, but still I think now is not a good time. If people really want edits, I think we should at least make it cumbersome in the UI so it's clear that it is not really an edit, but actually a gambiarra amending of the original with pieces of glued paper on top.

"gambiarra" = work-around nostr:nevent1qqsxt67e7g0rc7a3ndkqfrwwctcsut8s37tg0pvwv8v42vpdm6s3tkspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzqwlsccluhy6xxsr6l9a9uhhxf75g85g8a709tprjcn4e42h053vaqvzqqqqqqy4777t6

@fiatjaf is an attack on #Nostr. Good work @Vitor Pamplona amethyst is amazing 👏 nostr:nevent1qqsxt67e7g0rc7a3ndkqfrwwctcsut8s37tg0pvwv8v42vpdm6s3tkspzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsygpm7rrrljungc6q0tuh5hj7ue863q73qlheu4vywtzwhx42a7j9n5psgqqqqqqsf0k20q

Need a version of #Nostr for this meme 🤣 https://nostrcheck.me/media/34651a9392d34bf9d064e39f3c10beef74b5e28e710c07324317b687c4abd7e8/c5ecbc456ab80a62be19f54b2940c02249a9f97cd07c6083b7e75633dc3afba4.webp nostr:nevent1qqsvlaydyvq0z9xmvesg59g6hwajdkn0hrhfcprlzzxzegus6hs9m9qpzdmhxw309akx7cmpd35x7um58g6rsd3eqgsrgeg6jwfdxjle6pjw88euzzlw7a94u288zrq8xfp30d58cj4a06qrqsqqqqqp9xyqef

Some would implement that kind, others wouldn't. That's not normally a bad thing. It's part of how Nostr is meant to work. But it's bad in this case because those events would serve the same purpose as kind1 events most of the time, for most users, in most circumstances.

> At least for now, kind1 is the common ground everybody has and it should remain that for the foreseeable future, at the basic level it's super easy to get started, easy to read, easy to write, easy to display. I think it should remain the case *forever*. Other protocols will work differently, but Nostr should remain (uneditable) kind1-focused, in my view. I also have my objections to edits on Nostr. nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzprhy9yxf3vst9xv38zej9arxagsvw4sg7452k570z9yjh7djapyuqy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3qamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wd4hk6tcqyqu72u49vh94kfq6elfp50sq4prnxng42qxe7q3lhy7r89vhy65cx273rt5

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.

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.

> 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.