Will @jb55 - 1y
I have never edited a longform post because we should not be using replaceable events for this. Relays will remove older versions, so you are forced to make replies, reactions and zaps target the naddr which opens up a can of horrible problems in the protocol. People working on longform stuff should fix the spec. Damus will never target naddr’s for replies and zaps because this is pretty dangerous and can lead to people looking like they are supporting things they don’t support.
daniele @dtonon - 1y
Why is it dangerous?
You can make a post that says “puppies are awesome”, get lots of people to zap it and reply “agree!”, then update it to “death to all jews” and then there is no way to see the edit history. It just looks like people are supporting that statement with zaps and replies. See the problem ?
e989a - 1y
Did you ever think about using CRDT (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-free_replicated_data_type) for editable long form content? We have all tools in place and replacable events are not needed.
Yes, I see it. It's the same problem that exists today with any self hosted blog, of course. Platforms storically solved it disabling or limiting the edit on a short period. Maybe the solution is to include the revisions and make them accessible at comments' level. So if something happens the user can always reply to himself and point out that the comment was related to a different context, highlighting the shady update. A real win would be to somehow force every update/event to include *all* the previous revisions, in this way we can also solve the "vanished from relay" problem, but currently we have only the `d` tag, so revisions are not chainable.
An important and interesting note: what you are worried about is already possible today replacing a image/video linked content, without any formal edit. And it can happens on short notes too. So Damus, like any other clients, is already vulnerable to this sort of "attack".
You are already living the problem with short notes :)
PABLOF7z @PABLOF7z - 1y
if you `e` tag along with the `a` this problem goes away, even if you original event goes away, you have prove that you didn't react in it's current form you could currently tweet something like "this is cool www.example.com" and then the people on example.com put a swastika I think there are problems with NIP-33s in general, but I don't think this is one of them
furthermore, when you e-tag a NIP-33 you could publish the NIP-33 you're tagging to your own relay and then prove that the pubkey that published it was maliciously altering content I think changing a NIP-33 maliciously like this is much more a cryptographically-sound self-own rather than a problem for people tagging it.
they already do; each "update" is a separate event that *can* be kept (even the NIP now reflects that this might be the case)
3bf0c - 1y
It's a similar issue if I post an immutable kind 1 note saying "I love the https://puppies.com/ website" and then an year later the domain is bought by a nazist group. I think just general education and a caveat in the clients saying that the reply was made to a different event in a different time fixes this as best as possible.
Blergh.
Users are more inclined to understand that a external link can change, but they hardly can think that this apply to an embedded content: nostr: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
"p2p" triggered.
NIP-94 could solve this.
🤝 nostr:nevent1qqsyc092uu5ktkye8tj88etlxts4xnd2pv97xynl9e0wf2klnzp59nqpr9mhxue69uhhqctzd3hkvdm69ehx7um5wgcjucm0d5pzp75cf0tahv5z7plpdeaws7ex52nmnwgtwfr2g3m37r844evqrr6jsz9lm9
Agreed.
Many users are vulnerable today to screenshot attacks in which you alter something in a page and take a picture of that. Doesn't mean the internet is broken because of that. There are many things users will have to learn if they are going to start using Nostr.
42222 - 1y
The "right" way to fix this is to not allow any edits to any post once it has been interacted with in any way - if it's had a like or a zap or a reply. It's the way sensible discussion systems work, and it would make sense to have it do the same here. This is a definite problem, and without any obvious "edited" indicator, it's quite a concern.
Gigi @Gigi - 1y
crypotgraphically sound self-owns are the worst kind of self-owns nostr:nevent1qqsvyxucvjxlwsm7u6mtf6esqk2ryzr6qtug9g4mmtsmsmhm2c53qespp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqzyrafsj7hmweg9ur7zmn6apajdg48hxuskujx53rhrux0ttjcqx84yqcyqqqqqqg4apc28
Sure. My point was made to confirm your view and relax the matter in response to Will observation, not to highlight any specific criticism. That said, it would be nice to have an "atomic" way to store multimedia notes.
97c70 - 1y
I second this, replaceable events are bad and introduce a lot of complexity. Lists, especially ones that get updated a lot are also bad because of race conditions between clients.
c80b5 - 1y
One of the additions in the approval spec for community posts was to include both the naddr and event id in the approval event. It doesn’t fix the problem, but it at least lets the client display properly if an approval is out of date or invalid. In theory you could do the same with replies, though I agree it seems like a bit of a rabbit hole.
Impressive argument you got there
The x tag contains the file hash, you don't need the time attestation to spot a remote update.
