5 ms·

> it does not rely on P2P techniques, therefore it works. followed by > To publish something, you write a post, sign it with your key and send it to multiple

> it does not rely on P2P techniques, therefore it works. followed by > To publish something, you write a post, sign it with your key and send it to multiple relays (servers hosted by someone else, or yourself). To get updates from other people, you ask multiple relays if they know anything about these other people. Anyone can run a relay. Sounds pretty much like P2P techniques to me.

zapataband1 5y ago
Another nitpick this -> "A relay can block a user from publishing anything there, " sounds like censorship to me We need to realize our problem is not with censoring people, it's with who does the censoring. We don't like it to be the gov, because we don't feel like the gov is 'by and for the people' We don't like it being large corporations because that's doubly the case.
- sa1 5y ago
  > A relay can block a user from publishing anything there. The point is that it won’t be effective since messages are pushed to/pulled from multiple relays.
  - brightstep 5y ago
    Unless relays come together and agree to block someone or something. As long as there are enough relays this is improbable
    - ayende 5y ago
      At which point you can setup your own relay, you don't have a block here
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        Unless nobody is willing to peer with you. These are all questions we've already seen from USENET; in fact, it's not entirely clear to me what the benefit to this protocol is over USENET, except it's new.
        cuu508 5y ago
        But IIUC, other relays don't need to peer with your relay. Your followers just need to know what relay you are using, so they can get your posts.
        shadowgovt 5y ago
        Correct, but that makes your node a non-distributed single-point-of-failure if the question is censorship concerns.
        elevader 5y ago
        This sounds more and more like running a blog.
        fiatjaf 5y ago
        From what I know USENET is more like Mastodon. Nostr has similarities with Mastodon but it's much more flexible, scalable, not to mention the public key infrastructure.
- logic_beats_pro 5y ago
  >We need to realize our problem is not with censoring people, it's with who does the censoring. No, the problem is with censoring people. You make it seem like censorship is a given. I disagree and feel no need to have a third party prune unwanted ideas for me. This will seem like a strange idea for some but I don't need a priest in between myself and God. I don't need a doctor in between myself and good health. Why would I need a censor in between myself and information? No need for governments, no need for corporations, just me and my silly brain will decide what to digest. What a concept! - We need to realize our problem is not with censoring people, it's not with who does the censoring, it's people that try and normalize censorship.
  - ncallaway 5y ago
    > No, the problem is with censoring people. No, it’s who/when/where the censorship occurs. If you want to come into my living room and shout Nazi propaganda, your ass is getting censored and banned from my house. If you think that level of censorship is a problem, then we have a fundamental disagreement, and the bad news for you is 95% of people will disagree with you. If you agree on that level of censorship, then we’re just arguing where the who/when/where line should be.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    Censorship is a given for large online platforms. You can and should try to allow free propagation of ideas, but you also have to protect the forum from people who are determined to fill it with hateful commentary and pornography. 4chan isn’t a crazy special case, it’s the default destination of a forum where everyone knows there are no rules.
    - heyitsguay 5y ago
      In particular, it used to be called "forum moderation" until that was deliberately conflated with censorship by far-right groups, angry at their loss of audience, starting I guess somewhere around 2010.
Cameri 5y ago
Adam <-> Relay <-> ... <-> Relay <-> Bob
supertestnet 5y ago
I think p2p techniques are distinguished by being "serverless," that is, you don't publish content to someone else's device, you host your content on your own device and people have to connect to your device to get your content. Peers talk directly to other peers. In nostr and other client/server models like mastodon, you publish content on someone else's server and if you go offline people can still access it. The difference with nostr is lots of redundancy -- you post your content to like 5 servers so that if one goes down you're not really censored, people still get your content and -- in your list of relays -- you replace the censorious one and then your followers update where they follow you at.
beaconstudios 5y ago
Sounds like p2p with supernodes, like the GNUTELLA network (limewire) used.
- dogma1138 5y ago
  It doesn’t seem like the relays on Nostr sync with each other and each relay operator can choose which content is hosted on it. The link to the content isn’t global it’s still relay/post the client just searches for a given post within its list of relays. The content is then served through a specific relay which hosts it so basically directly from a server. So this isn’t a supernode topology or server P2P of any kind. GNUTELLA supernodes were used to limit the number of peering connections that each client on the network had to maintain and organize the network into a manageable topology this is necessary from a technical perspective and any P2P network solves this problem in some manner that turns a fully meshed network into some sort of leaf and spine topology. This is basically needed to ensure that any client on the network can reach any other client reliably and to ensure that the network can support large number of clients without needing to coordinate peering globally across the entire network. If you build a P2P network where peering is just a randomized best effort mesh between all clients it would rather quickly break into a bunch of rather isolated networks as peninsulas and then islands would form.
- easrng 5y ago
  Seems more like torrent trackers to me.
fiatjaf 5y ago
To me it sounds pretty much like client-server architecture.

zapataband1 5y ago

Another nitpick this -> "A relay can block a user from publishing anything there, " sounds like censorship to me We need to realize our problem is not with censoring people, it's with who does the censoring. We don't like it to be the gov, because we don't feel like the gov is 'by and for the people' We don't like it being large corporations because that's doubly the case.

sa1 5y ago
> A relay can block a user from publishing anything there. The point is that it won’t be effective since messages are pushed to/pulled from multiple relays.
- brightstep 5y ago
  Unless relays come together and agree to block someone or something. As long as there are enough relays this is improbable
  - ayende 5y ago
    At which point you can setup your own relay, you don't have a block here
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      Unless nobody is willing to peer with you. These are all questions we've already seen from USENET; in fact, it's not entirely clear to me what the benefit to this protocol is over USENET, except it's new.
      - cuu508 5y ago
        But IIUC, other relays don't need to peer with your relay. Your followers just need to know what relay you are using, so they can get your posts.
        shadowgovt 5y ago
        Correct, but that makes your node a non-distributed single-point-of-failure if the question is censorship concerns.
        elevader 5y ago
        This sounds more and more like running a blog.
      - fiatjaf 5y ago
        From what I know USENET is more like Mastodon. Nostr has similarities with Mastodon but it's much more flexible, scalable, not to mention the public key infrastructure.
logic_beats_pro 5y ago
>We need to realize our problem is not with censoring people, it's with who does the censoring. No, the problem is with censoring people. You make it seem like censorship is a given. I disagree and feel no need to have a third party prune unwanted ideas for me. This will seem like a strange idea for some but I don't need a priest in between myself and God. I don't need a doctor in between myself and good health. Why would I need a censor in between myself and information? No need for governments, no need for corporations, just me and my silly brain will decide what to digest. What a concept! - We need to realize our problem is not with censoring people, it's not with who does the censoring, it's people that try and normalize censorship.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  > No, the problem is with censoring people. No, it’s who/when/where the censorship occurs. If you want to come into my living room and shout Nazi propaganda, your ass is getting censored and banned from my house. If you think that level of censorship is a problem, then we have a fundamental disagreement, and the bad news for you is 95% of people will disagree with you. If you agree on that level of censorship, then we’re just arguing where the who/when/where line should be.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  Censorship is a given for large online platforms. You can and should try to allow free propagation of ideas, but you also have to protect the forum from people who are determined to fill it with hateful commentary and pornography. 4chan isn’t a crazy special case, it’s the default destination of a forum where everyone knows there are no rules.
  - heyitsguay 5y ago
    In particular, it used to be called "forum moderation" until that was deliberately conflated with censorship by far-right groups, angry at their loss of audience, starting I guess somewhere around 2010.

Cameri 5y ago

Adam <-> Relay <-> ... <-> Relay <-> Bob

supertestnet 5y ago

I think p2p techniques are distinguished by being "serverless," that is, you don't publish content to someone else's device, you host your content on your own device and people have to connect to your device to get your content. Peers talk directly to other peers. In nostr and other client/server models like mastodon, you publish content on someone else's server and if you go offline people can still access it. The difference with nostr is lots of redundancy -- you post your content to like 5 servers so that if one goes down you're not really censored, people still get your content and -- in your list of relays -- you replace the censorious one and then your followers update where they follow you at.

beaconstudios 5y ago

Sounds like p2p with supernodes, like the GNUTELLA network (limewire) used.

dogma1138 5y ago
It doesn’t seem like the relays on Nostr sync with each other and each relay operator can choose which content is hosted on it. The link to the content isn’t global it’s still relay/post the client just searches for a given post within its list of relays. The content is then served through a specific relay which hosts it so basically directly from a server. So this isn’t a supernode topology or server P2P of any kind. GNUTELLA supernodes were used to limit the number of peering connections that each client on the network had to maintain and organize the network into a manageable topology this is necessary from a technical perspective and any P2P network solves this problem in some manner that turns a fully meshed network into some sort of leaf and spine topology. This is basically needed to ensure that any client on the network can reach any other client reliably and to ensure that the network can support large number of clients without needing to coordinate peering globally across the entire network. If you build a P2P network where peering is just a randomized best effort mesh between all clients it would rather quickly break into a bunch of rather isolated networks as peninsulas and then islands would form.
easrng 5y ago
Seems more like torrent trackers to me.

fiatjaf 5y ago

To me it sounds pretty much like client-server architecture.