Tim Bouma on Nostr: Another (unintentional or intentional?) innovation of #nostr, as defined in NIP-01 is ...
Another (unintentional or intentional?) innovation of #nostr, as defined in NIP-01 is the introduction of a simple ‘grammar’ to easily specify a verifiable object, namely a signed JSON Brecht.
There is a nice parallel to a well-formed sentence in traditional grammar. If the event is signed, it can be regarded like a sentence that has its own identity, and can can be parsed for meaning as such.
Further, the concept of ‘kind’ gives each event kind its own internal grammar, so that, for example, kind 1 can be understood as a post, kind 4 as a private message, kind 7375 as a Cashu proof, so one and so for. This definition of kind gives nostr a massive expanse of possibilities, all falling under the idea, that if it is a signed JSON object, it is valid. This is similar to the idea of a valid sentence in traditional grammar- if it follows the rules, it is valid. This does not constrain you to the wide variety of sentences you wish to generate, only that they are valid. It is then up to the sender and receiver to define and interpret the meaning of the events as per kinds - #nostr , like grammar is indifferent to this.
This is confirming to me that #nostr is special. When I first encountered the protocol a couple of years ago, I knew that there was something special, but couldn’t really articulate it, but getting closer to it now. It’s more than being censorship resistance - it’s more generally, verifiable communication - #nostr is the simple, generic scheme that works better, more efficiently than the many bespoke, complicated schemes that we have today.
There is a nice parallel to a well-formed sentence in traditional grammar. If the event is signed, it can be regarded like a sentence that has its own identity, and can can be parsed for meaning as such.
Further, the concept of ‘kind’ gives each event kind its own internal grammar, so that, for example, kind 1 can be understood as a post, kind 4 as a private message, kind 7375 as a Cashu proof, so one and so for. This definition of kind gives nostr a massive expanse of possibilities, all falling under the idea, that if it is a signed JSON object, it is valid. This is similar to the idea of a valid sentence in traditional grammar- if it follows the rules, it is valid. This does not constrain you to the wide variety of sentences you wish to generate, only that they are valid. It is then up to the sender and receiver to define and interpret the meaning of the events as per kinds - #nostr , like grammar is indifferent to this.
This is confirming to me that #nostr is special. When I first encountered the protocol a couple of years ago, I knew that there was something special, but couldn’t really articulate it, but getting closer to it now. It’s more than being censorship resistance - it’s more generally, verifiable communication - #nostr is the simple, generic scheme that works better, more efficiently than the many bespoke, complicated schemes that we have today.