3 ms·

> Imagine you're running a relay on your machine, and somebody posts some CSAM, or stolen CC data, or hate speech, etc through your relay. Relays can be authen

by sph 4y ago

> Imagine you're running a relay on your machine, and somebody posts some CSAM, or stolen CC data, or hate speech, etc through your relay. Relays can be authenticated. If you don't want your relay to accept data from anyone, don't leave it open. Same with any other Internet protocol. Also, per the spec or convention, relays SHALL NOT talk to each other. Each relay is a separate island, but the protocol permits and recommends clients to publish on multiple relays. This is the basis of their censorship-resistance. See also my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34530876 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34530876

eduction 4y ago
The whole reason I was excited about Nostr was the censorship resistance but if the relays choose who gets to authenticate you’re back to square one (well, whichever square Mastodon is). Also, it seems naive to think that a ban on blocklists in the spec will keep real free humans from doing exactly as they’ve done on email, Mastodon etc and share block lists.
- Ajedi32 4y ago
  I've only read a little about Nostr, but I think the difference is that with Nostr you own your own identity, so if a relay bans you you can just switch to a different relay and continue as you were with no significant disruption. You're probably right about shared blacklists eventually becoming a thing though.
- Cameri 4y ago
  The AUTH Nostr Implementation Possibility is not mandatory. You can choose to use it or not, it's not all or nothing. Every single NIP except for NIP-01 is optional.
  - aliqot 4y ago
    I wonder what the XMPP camp is up to these days
    - MattJ100 4y ago
      I sense there was probably some irony in your post. Nevertheless, I'll bite :) The "XMPP camp" is doing well and very busy: https://xmpp.org/newsletter/ https://xmpp.org/newsletter/ We're lacking a nostr bridge if anyone wants to work on that...
vorpalhex 4y ago
> Also, per the spec or convention, relays SHALL NOT talk to each other. That has no bearing on an attacker.
notpushkin 4y ago
> relays SHALL NOT talk to each other I don't get it. What's the point then?
- last_responder 4y ago
  At that point it is an endpoint not a relay.
  - CodexArcana 4y ago
    Yeah relay is a bad name for it.
Cameri 4y ago
The spec doesn't say relays SHALL NOT talk to each other. YOU made that up. It says they don't talk to each other but it is not prevented. You can mirror one relay to another easily: echo '["REQ", "mirror" ,{}]' | websocat wss://source | jq -del '.[1]' | websocat wss://dest
- sph 4y ago
  > It says they don't talk to each other but it is not prevented No protocol can prevent a piece of software from doing whatever they want. The "shall not" is not absolute: the spec assumes and expects relays not to talk to each other. Nothing prevents you from creating a relay that connects to another relay, of course, but that would not be in the spirit of what Nostr is trying to achieve.

by sph 4y ago

eduction 4y ago

The whole reason I was excited about Nostr was the censorship resistance but if the relays choose who gets to authenticate you’re back to square one (well, whichever square Mastodon is). Also, it seems naive to think that a ban on blocklists in the spec will keep real free humans from doing exactly as they’ve done on email, Mastodon etc and share block lists.

Ajedi32 4y ago
I've only read a little about Nostr, but I think the difference is that with Nostr you own your own identity, so if a relay bans you you can just switch to a different relay and continue as you were with no significant disruption. You're probably right about shared blacklists eventually becoming a thing though.
Cameri 4y ago
The AUTH Nostr Implementation Possibility is not mandatory. You can choose to use it or not, it's not all or nothing. Every single NIP except for NIP-01 is optional.
- aliqot 4y ago
  I wonder what the XMPP camp is up to these days
  - MattJ100 4y ago
    I sense there was probably some irony in your post. Nevertheless, I'll bite :) The "XMPP camp" is doing well and very busy: https://xmpp.org/newsletter/ https://xmpp.org/newsletter/ We're lacking a nostr bridge if anyone wants to work on that...

vorpalhex 4y ago

> Also, per the spec or convention, relays SHALL NOT talk to each other. That has no bearing on an attacker.

notpushkin 4y ago

> relays SHALL NOT talk to each other I don't get it. What's the point then?

last_responder 4y ago
At that point it is an endpoint not a relay.
- CodexArcana 4y ago
  Yeah relay is a bad name for it.

Cameri 4y ago

The spec doesn't say relays SHALL NOT talk to each other. YOU made that up. It says they don't talk to each other but it is not prevented. You can mirror one relay to another easily: echo '["REQ", "mirror" ,{}]' | websocat wss://source | jq -del '.[1]' | websocat wss://dest

sph 4y ago
> It says they don't talk to each other but it is not prevented No protocol can prevent a piece of software from doing whatever they want. The "shall not" is not absolute: the spec assumes and expects relays not to talk to each other. Nothing prevents you from creating a relay that connects to another relay, of course, but that would not be in the spirit of what Nostr is trying to achieve.