Five on Nostr: Thanks for this post! We need criticism like this to spark meaningful conversation ...
Thanks for this post! We need criticism like this to spark meaningful conversation and for stakeholders to improve.
My thoughts:
-> Nostr / Bitcoin analogy: Bitcoin the idea, once out in the world, cannot be uninvented just like Nostr with self-authenticating data and optionality in server preferences.
In other words, the pubkey network that enables a global marketplace for UX on the same data. I firmly believe that if Nostr fails in its current form, the idea I described above cannot.
It is because most if not all apps benefit from a social graph and associated data they can already tap into, and not having to bootstrap themselves from ground zero while users have much more freedom to choose what and who to see and what not.
For me it's a no-go to participate in the siloes ever again, once at least one nostr app in a category gets to a point where it's usable, like the twitter clones, #Zapstore or long-form apps like #Yakihonne and #Primal to some extent. It's just a worse UX for me to go back and be handled like a child in some contexts, and cattle to be slaughtered and exploited in others.
The idea of Nostr will not be stopped because the idea of cryptographic identities and the decoupling of clients and servers will live on: I could argue that Nostr was not even the first to try to make this idea a reality but it was the first to achieve a breakthrough. Just like bitcoin.
-> "Nostr doesn't solve the multiple social accounts problem" : I hear your reservations. People want to talk to their audiences in the right way and form, catering to the specific UX they find useful for that particular message. That's exactly why people many times design new NIPs for a use-case that their app needs, while other times they go with an established NIP already supporting something they want to do.
There is really nothing that would stop you from designing the exact UX you want for your audience by mixing, matching and inventing new NIPs on the one hand and rendering the stuff you exactly want, the way you exactly want on the other. A simple example of this is SatShoot's freelance Job/Offer NIPs, and the review NIP I designed for the freelance use-case, based on arkinox (nprofile…5qrn) 's work on the Qualitative Thumb System (qts). Another one is the new kind-scoped follows in SatShoot which allows you to start a new professional network that doesn't interfere with the kind3 follow. The miracle of nostr is that while you can do that, you can still use the original social graph to bootstrap an initial web of trust.
I believe your criticism in this regard shines light on how nostr apps might do this hard work badly today but this has absolutely nothing to do with nostr the protocol. It has to do with unpolished products. And a possible lack of imagination by product people and engineers.
-> "Nostr is not *for* Censorship Resistance": The amount of focus around this mantra is cringe-worthy. I mean the explicit platitudes around this. Nostr is not even the best protocol if you want to emphasize censorship resistance. What nostr is really good at is preserving the established working model of server-client architecture all the while allowing for more optionality and thus more competition and thus better UX. That's it! Nostr came about because fiatjaf (nprofile…dlnm) had enough of P2P purism in the first place. But again, people not understanding what nostr is about is no problem for nostr, or myself. I believe there will be people who get it, and they can be my running mates in the ecosystem.
-> "Grants come with a price": Absolutely agree. This is why I never applied to OpenSats and never will. I think people have somehow gotten used to believing that accepting money with "No strings attached" is a thing. It is NOT, and this is going to be a lesson for as long as people exist. However, I don't condemn people who have done this. Especially those who could take the time and pioneer solutions on nostr that is very hard without taking some time off the product-market fit aspect. I am not a protocol dev so I naturally want to spend my time designing and developing apps with more specific utility. But this "good for nostr" vs "good for xyz app" is not a trivial dilemma for people with a short to medium term profit motive. I chose to use my own time and savings to execute on my own vision, because I want to work on something with hopes for profits in a few years. If I run out of money, I either get an investor or offer my service to someone who has a vision I can support. This keeps my priorities clear. I wonder what people on grants feel like who are somewhere in the middle area of that "good for nostr" - "good for my app" framework, but I don't want to be one of them.
Once again, thanks for sharing this and I wish you the best with Satlantis!
My thoughts:
-> Nostr / Bitcoin analogy: Bitcoin the idea, once out in the world, cannot be uninvented just like Nostr with self-authenticating data and optionality in server preferences.
In other words, the pubkey network that enables a global marketplace for UX on the same data. I firmly believe that if Nostr fails in its current form, the idea I described above cannot.
It is because most if not all apps benefit from a social graph and associated data they can already tap into, and not having to bootstrap themselves from ground zero while users have much more freedom to choose what and who to see and what not.
For me it's a no-go to participate in the siloes ever again, once at least one nostr app in a category gets to a point where it's usable, like the twitter clones, #Zapstore or long-form apps like #Yakihonne and #Primal to some extent. It's just a worse UX for me to go back and be handled like a child in some contexts, and cattle to be slaughtered and exploited in others.
The idea of Nostr will not be stopped because the idea of cryptographic identities and the decoupling of clients and servers will live on: I could argue that Nostr was not even the first to try to make this idea a reality but it was the first to achieve a breakthrough. Just like bitcoin.
-> "Nostr doesn't solve the multiple social accounts problem" : I hear your reservations. People want to talk to their audiences in the right way and form, catering to the specific UX they find useful for that particular message. That's exactly why people many times design new NIPs for a use-case that their app needs, while other times they go with an established NIP already supporting something they want to do.
There is really nothing that would stop you from designing the exact UX you want for your audience by mixing, matching and inventing new NIPs on the one hand and rendering the stuff you exactly want, the way you exactly want on the other. A simple example of this is SatShoot's freelance Job/Offer NIPs, and the review NIP I designed for the freelance use-case, based on arkinox (nprofile…5qrn) 's work on the Qualitative Thumb System (qts). Another one is the new kind-scoped follows in SatShoot which allows you to start a new professional network that doesn't interfere with the kind3 follow. The miracle of nostr is that while you can do that, you can still use the original social graph to bootstrap an initial web of trust.
I believe your criticism in this regard shines light on how nostr apps might do this hard work badly today but this has absolutely nothing to do with nostr the protocol. It has to do with unpolished products. And a possible lack of imagination by product people and engineers.
-> "Nostr is not *for* Censorship Resistance": The amount of focus around this mantra is cringe-worthy. I mean the explicit platitudes around this. Nostr is not even the best protocol if you want to emphasize censorship resistance. What nostr is really good at is preserving the established working model of server-client architecture all the while allowing for more optionality and thus more competition and thus better UX. That's it! Nostr came about because fiatjaf (nprofile…dlnm) had enough of P2P purism in the first place. But again, people not understanding what nostr is about is no problem for nostr, or myself. I believe there will be people who get it, and they can be my running mates in the ecosystem.
-> "Grants come with a price": Absolutely agree. This is why I never applied to OpenSats and never will. I think people have somehow gotten used to believing that accepting money with "No strings attached" is a thing. It is NOT, and this is going to be a lesson for as long as people exist. However, I don't condemn people who have done this. Especially those who could take the time and pioneer solutions on nostr that is very hard without taking some time off the product-market fit aspect. I am not a protocol dev so I naturally want to spend my time designing and developing apps with more specific utility. But this "good for nostr" vs "good for xyz app" is not a trivial dilemma for people with a short to medium term profit motive. I chose to use my own time and savings to execute on my own vision, because I want to work on something with hopes for profits in a few years. If I run out of money, I either get an investor or offer my service to someone who has a vision I can support. This keeps my priorities clear. I wonder what people on grants feel like who are somewhere in the middle area of that "good for nostr" - "good for my app" framework, but I don't want to be one of them.
Once again, thanks for sharing this and I wish you the best with Satlantis!