dk on Nostr: listened to the episode and loved it. reminded me I've missed hearing from you lately ...
listened to the episode and loved it. reminded me I've missed hearing from you lately :)
I think the concept of "there is no global state" is a good one to keep in mind and definitely applies to things such as "likes on YouTube" or more generally "likes on a video".
I would disagree that in the world there can't/shouldn't be a global state. bitcoin is an attempt to create a global state and eventually succeeds as time passes even if not all blocks at the tip are always agreed upon at all times. nostr is not an attempt at global state (quite the opposite!) so things built on nostr will continually fail at attempting global state.
I was imagining a way to anchor the name space on the global state of bitcoin, but where the names could be useful in many contexts including for having unique nostr usernames (kind of a parallel system to nip-05).
my outstanding question is first "would it be valuable to have a common name space if it could be done without centralized issuers, servers and control points?" I suspect it would be valuable since nip-05 is an attempt at such which happens to fall short on the censorship resistant ideal. Seems to indicate there would be demand for such a thing if it could be done.
I understand your position is something like "people should stop trying to create global state where it can't be done" and if we're talking about nostr, I agree it's prob a waste of time. but my question is if it could be done (using bitcoin, for example), would it be valuable to have such a thing?
I think the concept of "there is no global state" is a good one to keep in mind and definitely applies to things such as "likes on YouTube" or more generally "likes on a video".
I would disagree that in the world there can't/shouldn't be a global state. bitcoin is an attempt to create a global state and eventually succeeds as time passes even if not all blocks at the tip are always agreed upon at all times. nostr is not an attempt at global state (quite the opposite!) so things built on nostr will continually fail at attempting global state.
I was imagining a way to anchor the name space on the global state of bitcoin, but where the names could be useful in many contexts including for having unique nostr usernames (kind of a parallel system to nip-05).
my outstanding question is first "would it be valuable to have a common name space if it could be done without centralized issuers, servers and control points?" I suspect it would be valuable since nip-05 is an attempt at such which happens to fall short on the censorship resistant ideal. Seems to indicate there would be demand for such a thing if it could be done.
I understand your position is something like "people should stop trying to create global state where it can't be done" and if we're talking about nostr, I agree it's prob a waste of time. but my question is if it could be done (using bitcoin, for example), would it be valuable to have such a thing?