Hacker News Reader

Comment by lazzlazzlazz | Hacker News Reader

It has been long predicted that federated models (like Nostr) just degrade into a few providers that monetize in the same way they would if the network was centralized. It's the worst of both worlds between centralization and real decentralization — which (unfortunately to the haters) almost certain requires Byzantine fault tolerant consensus (blockchains).

Same thing over and over again.

View on HN

Nostr doesn't even have the decoupling afforded by what we typically think of when we think of federated networks (email, activitypub, matrix). If you and another party aren't using the same relay, there is 0 way for you to interact. It assumes either you pre-agree on a relay (sticky defaults encouraging centralization) or shotgun messages to many relays (economies of scale encourgaing centralization). The protocol explicitly forbids relays from forwarding to each other.

Nostr is a very simple protocol that could have been invented in essence in 1995. There's a reason it wasn't invented until recently, because it's difficult to build robust protocols with good guarantees about discoverability and reliability with a foundation that is as limited as it is.

This is not true. Read up on the outbox model. I have linked it elsewhere in replies in this thread.

You post to your own preferred relays, as well as to the preferred relays of others who are involved in the conversation, as well as to a couple of global relays for easy discoverability.

These global relays are useful, but are interchangeable and totally replaceable. As soon as you've connected with someone you can retrieve their updates, because you know their preferred relays, and can query them directly.

That's exactly what I'm talking about with having pre-agreed relays. Those relays become preferred as a sticky default, especially with low-sophistication users that don't have organic onboarding paths away from the sticky defaults.

Incorrect.

Everyone can announce to the network where they read/write from. Clients can figure out (based on the people you follow) from which relays to get the content.

I've been using it like this for nearly a year. It works

It's a little different to federated networks like GNU Social/Mastadon since the data and the relay are separate. You can post the same data to multiple relays and read from many relays simultaneously. Meaning you aren't tied to picking a single relay with network effects, and although a big relay going offline might cause temporary chaos, it's fairly easy for new ones to be set up and added to clients, without having to explicitly move things like accounts and so on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com