Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Friday, 14-Mar-2025 07:36:34 JST Matt Hamilton

   I've poosted a lot today.

   Just like a good nostrite should.

   #Zap to support, DM to suggest new feeds.

   • Embed this notice
     Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Friday, 14-Mar-2025 07:36:30 JST Matt Hamilton

     in reply to

     • Richard
     • 𝕾𝖎𝖗 𝕽𝖞𝖆𝖓 𝕿𝖍𝖔𝖒𝖆𝖘

     @ryan @Richard Nostr is objectively the better protocol, but it's a victim of sprawl and lacks adequate documentation.

     That's not to say the documentation isn't there, just that you have to piece together a collection of (in some cases superseding) documents to produce an adequate MVP.

     It really needs a "1.0" or tagged revision and pooled spec to be implemented before it becomes serious, even though that's all just organizational/psychological.

     That said, see: https://declin.eu/objects/98f8b106-5298-49ca-a875-e4e310e26f6c

   • Embed this notice
     ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware: (dcc@annihilation.social)'s status on Friday, 14-Mar-2025 07:36:30 JST ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware:

     in reply to

     • Richard
     • 𝕾𝖎𝖗 𝕽𝖞𝖆𝖓 𝕿𝖍𝖔𝖒𝖆𝖘
     @eriner @ryan @Richard >Nostr is objectively the better protocol,
     Worse* its literately made so it could be spammed with cp.
     prettygood likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     𝕾𝖎𝖗 𝕽𝖞𝖆𝖓 𝕿𝖍𝖔𝖒𝖆𝖘 (ryan@bxe.io)'s status on Friday, 14-Mar-2025 07:36:31 JST 𝕾𝖎𝖗 𝕽𝖞𝖆𝖓 𝕿𝖍𝖔𝖒𝖆𝖘

     in reply to

     • Richard
     @eriner @Richard alex built a bridge that works just enough and then ditched fedi forever
   • Embed this notice
     Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Friday, 14-Mar-2025 07:36:32 JST Matt Hamilton

     in reply to

     • Richard

     @Richard There is NIP-05 (versus the more commonly known NIP-0529159) that provides domain verification, but that isn't reflected on any of the bridges I've seen, I'm sure because of how the bridges work in interfacing with AP.

   • Embed this notice
     Richard (richard@noauthority.social)'s status on Friday, 14-Mar-2025 07:36:33 JST Richard

     in reply to

     @eriner are they not allowed to have normal name aliases, or are they all retarded?

   • Embed this notice
     ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware: (dcc@annihilation.social)'s status on Friday, 14-Mar-2025 07:43:02 JST ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware:

     in reply to

     • Richard
     • 𝕾𝖎𝖗 𝕽𝖞𝖆𝖓 𝕿𝖍𝖔𝖒𝖆𝖘
     @eriner @ryan @Richard > there is no cost to account creation
     >you have to pay money to not be spamed
     I think the issue is the protocol. not the way its used...
   • Embed this notice
     Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Friday, 14-Mar-2025 07:43:03 JST Matt Hamilton

     in reply to

     • ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware:
     • Richard
     • 𝕾𝖎𝖗 𝕽𝖞𝖆𝖓 𝕿𝖍𝖔𝖒𝖆𝖘

     @dcc @ryan @Richard > making me defend nostr

     This is a problem for public servers (relays) because there is no cost to account creation (https://noauthority.social/@eriner/113085784669728815). AP suffers from the same problem (as does email *in theory), with the difference being that you can increase the cost of attack by dropping domains. There is a minimum cost to registering domains, and there is a reason many networks outright drop .xyz.

     That said, Nostr should be viewed as proto, not the product of public servers.

     dilbert 1 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware: (dcc@annihilation.social)'s status on Friday, 14-Mar-2025 07:52:58 JST ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware:

     in reply to

     • Richard
     • 𝕾𝖎𝖗 𝕽𝖞𝖆𝖓 𝕿𝖍𝖔𝖒𝖆𝖘
     @eriner @ryan @Richard Its not becuase of email verification at all in fact, its admin control. Also no email verification would not fix no stir since email has never been that effective.
   • Embed this notice
     Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Friday, 14-Mar-2025 07:52:59 JST Matt Hamilton

     in reply to

     • ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware:
     • Richard
     • 𝕾𝖎𝖗 𝕽𝖞𝖆𝖓 𝕿𝖍𝖔𝖒𝖆𝖘

     @dcc @ryan @Richard email verification is why the AP network isn't as impacted (as much) by spam; the vast majority of, if not all servers use email verification for accounts. The cost in this case is having an email, not directly financial (because email is subsidized by advertisers and run by a Google monopoly).

     Reality is, email, while disgusting, is the universal common denominator and invariantly has some level of cost associated with it.

     GenerateBech32() has virtually no cost.

   • Embed this notice
     ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware: (dcc@annihilation.social)'s status on Friday, 14-Mar-2025 08:03:17 JST ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware:

     in reply to

     • Richard
     • 𝕾𝖎𝖗 𝕽𝖞𝖆𝖓 𝕿𝖍𝖔𝖒𝖆𝖘
     @eriner @ryan @Richard O yes i was testing something yesterday i forgot to turn it off.
   • Embed this notice
     ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware: (dcc@annihilation.social)'s status on Friday, 14-Mar-2025 08:03:18 JST ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware:

     in reply to

     • Richard
     • 𝕾𝖎𝖗 𝕽𝖞𝖆𝖓 𝕿𝖍𝖔𝖒𝖆𝖘
     @eriner @ryan @Richard Mine
   • Embed this notice
     Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Friday, 14-Mar-2025 08:03:18 JST Matt Hamilton

     in reply to

     • ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware:
     • Richard
     • 𝕾𝖎𝖗 𝕽𝖞𝖆𝖓 𝕿𝖍𝖔𝖒𝖆𝖘

     @dcc @ryan @Richard

   • Embed this notice
     Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Friday, 14-Mar-2025 08:03:19 JST Matt Hamilton

     in reply to

     • ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware:
     • Richard
     • 𝕾𝖎𝖗 𝕽𝖞𝖆𝖓 𝕿𝖍𝖔𝖒𝖆𝖘

     @dcc @ryan @Richard You're right, the absence of cost imposed on posting is a choice the administrators of the big servers have made. But email verification, the out-of-band SMTP loop, IS a cost and *does* provide administrators of servers with tools and choices.

     Show me one AP server out there right now that doesn't require email verification before posting and I will show you an AP spam shithole.