Nostr View

semisol @Semisol - 5d

Oh look we’re reinventing what made the Fediverse trash: Making data portability hard by tying things to relays specifically. Opt out of NIP-29. nostr:note177uxm34pu4zgpcun5ezar966cm7uakaqajr62e9hxd2sutuzgmvsls8dck

1
0
3

mleku @mleku - 5d

been looking at some implementations of the nip-29 but i haven't really read it to be honest, i don't like the way it works, and i think that before we run off and do complicated shit we should do it simpler, this is what my nip-79 nostr relay chat is for... and it shifts persistence to the "client" side as well, the relay is only a rendezvous/tunnel

0
0
3

Laeserin @Laeserin - 5d

Big difference in running a Fediverse relay and running a Nostr relay for yourself and your 15 frens to chat.

2
0
3

semisol @Semisol - 5d

Reread my note pls

1
1
3

mleku @mleku - 5d

my biggest problem with nip-29 apart from its excessive complexity is the fact that it doesn't lend itself to scaling to join multiple small relays to provide redundancy, this is why in my proposed nip-79 "nostr relay chat" one of the first things it attends to is how to wrap messages so they can be broadcast across to other members of a relay group https://github.com/mleku/nips/blob/master/79.md nip-29, as nostr:npub12262qa4uhw7u8gdwlgmntqtv7aye8vdcmvszkqwgs0zchel6mz7s6cgrkj is pointing out, binds the messages to only be valid and this has problems with DNS being then also tied to it nip-79 makes no prescriptions about relays storing the data, it's my intention that clients like the IRC model of chanserv will cache messages and deliver them to users to enable async messaging

1
1
3

Laeserin @Laeserin - 5d

That's true. Can't use multi-relay architecture. That's a problem. We also have two parallel/mirrored community relays.

0
0
3

Laeserin @Laeserin - 5d

I'm for a community chat being tied to specific relays. I see the problem with them always only being tied to only one relay. Prevents using redundancy and scaling to secure the data and services, and means that you can't use relays to tier or overlap data and services. 🤔

1
0
3

semisol @Semisol - 5d

Yeah. Tying it to certain relays is fine. Only and only if you can move relays

0
1
3

Laeserin @Laeserin - 5d

I guess there needs to be some way to combine community relays in a group. Maybe. 🤔

1
0
3

Laeserin @Laeserin - 5d

Like, the christpill.nostr1.com and the biblestr.gitcitadel.com relay could be a relay group for #Biblestr.

1
0
3

mleku @mleku - 5d

i personally am not that hot on moderation of lists either, i think people can do that by themselves, if the UI makes muting simple and actually working really really don't like what i consider to be the "reddit" redefinition of blocking into "muting" at all, or the practise of hiders tempting you to click on them like a big red button labeled "don't press me" it's inflammatory and unhelpful... i want to see my mute list, i click on my configuration, i don't want it to be part of the main interface first you have a relay defined access control list enforced with nip-42 auth, and then you also can revoke access as well as specifically block npubs that may be included as "guest" members due to one or several of the first-level whitelisted users, this is the "infiltration" problem that is often used in open communities, it can be stopped by either blocking one or two stray (blacklisting) or if several of the users are falling for their bullshit, they can just be "nope, cancel, money back, here you are now fuck off" the thing is that these rigid, hierarchic style of access controls like defined for nip-29 are prone to being taken over by psycho bitchez who want to lord over their little cult den and this is something that we need to give the common pleb user some power to influence, and by normalizing blocking people and a the chatroom deciding to collectively ignore some asshat who is trying to infiltrate a group the onus on the relay owners is less and this also makes it easier to join several relays together that may have some overlap but not complete overlap of membership at the centre of my philosophy about this is that the more power you put back in the hands of the user, the less levers you give to toxic bitchez who just want to be the authoritaah in a non-hierarchic group, and that's not ok with me, and i don't think it helps by letting me decide that, it's better if there can be a progressive escalation of response that comes from the individuals instead of having to travel up through centralised networks

1
0
3

Laeserin @Laeserin - 5d

But NIP-29 groups already have an ID. It's <host>'<group-id> like "christpill.nostr1.com'3a2873jk9279" Couldn't we just allow for n number of hosts to preface the identifier? like "christpill.nostr1.com'biblestr.gitcitadel.com'3a2873jk9279"

2
0
3

Laeserin @Laeserin - 5d

Like, couldn't we have relays in the "h" tag? ["h", "3a2873jk9279", "christpill.nostr1.com", "biblestr.gitcitadel.com"]

0
0
3

Laeserin @Laeserin - 5d

The whole point of groups is to limit who can be in the group and/or what they can post there.

1
0
3

Laeserin @Laeserin - 5d

Nope.

0
0
3

mleku @mleku - 5d

yes, limit, not define and it's a dumb idea to put that power entirely in the hands of the moderators, because that's centralization and an easy attack point

1
0
3

Laeserin @Laeserin - 5d

Isn't that what we had before? The communities I started under the old NIP had a relay list. It somehow didn't work.

1
0
3

semisol @Semisol - 5d

no

0
0
3

semisol @Semisol - 5d

In the end there is 1 owner

1
0
3

mleku @mleku - 5d

it's not really a community if ownership is that concentrated, that's why i'm arguing for the idea of building a design that gives every participant some degree of control over their experience without being open enough for emergent things to happen it just isn't going to have the ability to grow at all, in the long term

1
0
3

mleku @mleku - 5d

like, i made this gophers chat on matrix, but i didn't do it for me, because most of you all others are either still kinda skeptical or mainly just not that experienced or knowledgeable and actually my posture on it is i'm here to help you all build on what you have and make it useful, and help you solve problems so i don't want to have very much control at all, it's even better when enough people get involved and they start to be able to do that for each other as well the same thing would apply for me running a relay to support connecting a community together... i only care about controlling it in as far as it doesn't become controlled by hostile entities having to "sign up" is friction i don't see having any benefit for promoting social harmony and productive collaboration

0
0
3

Laeserin @Laeserin - 5d

Well, we moderate by determining who is allowed to use the relays. If someone wants to use their mutes in addition to that, then that is fine by me, but the conversations might become disjointed and he'd probably end up getting muted back, a la Karnage, if he was annoying enough about it.

2
0
3
Showing page 1 of 1 pages