7 ms·

Nature's many attempts to evolve a Nostr

• bawolff 10mo ago
  Sounds like everyone is reinventing usenet but shittier. Or if you really care about the crypto piece, then freenet.
• EgregiousCube 10mo ago
  We already see "paid relays" and relays that filter certain content, even as small as nostr is today. I think the end state, if it manages to really catch on, is going to be as "oligarchical" as mastodon or other federated networks today - just via relays instead of via homeservers. A step in the right direction for sure! But I don't feel like Nostr is the final target that nature is shooting for here.
  • decoding 10mo ago
    The solution to bad relays is to just use different relays. Changing your relays is just a matter of publishing a new 10002 relay list, and optionally copying over your old notes (or reseeding them from local backups).
  • digitalbase 10mo ago
    Key difference is that is one relay author becomes "oligarchical" the notes just route around that (through different relays).
    • EgregiousCube 10mo ago
      +1, user owning the ID is a step in the right direction compared to "homeserver" owning the right key and makes this possible. That said - maybe (total hypothetical) the reason one relay becomes really big is because a lot of people think it provides really good service, and maybe it's difficult to convince the majority of the network to route around it. This would create a similar problem to what we see in more well established federated chat networks.
• wmf 10mo ago
  P2P with end-to-end encryption over relays existed in 2001 (e.g. Groove, Mojo Nation) and wasn't invented by Nostr. Nostr is so simple because it handwaves away the fact that everybody seems to use the same small set of relays and there's nothing stopping them from censoring the network. I'm also not aware of any incentives for the relay operators either.
  • nunobrito 10mo ago
    You are correct that it existed well before, the difference is that it was always complicated to use. Heck, we have been able to send PGP emails since almost 30 years ago. The innovative concept is that npub/nsec along with sending notes is trivially simple. The content does not need to encrypted, there is a huge value on publishing clear text messages that are crypto-verifiable. You also didn't had this feature on groove and others. I'd argue that NOSTR has indeed pioneered them into mainstream.
    • wmf 10mo ago
      there is a huge value on... You could say that if Nostr was successful but it isn't. Nostr has <1% the DAU of Bluesky.
      • nunobrito 10mo ago
        And yet here we are talking about NOSTR, again. :-)
    • attila-lendvai 10mo ago
      PGP can also sign clear text messages.
  • treyd 10mo ago
    Email is currently more decentralized than Nostr is in practice.
    • dahrkael 10mo ago
• nunobrito 10mo ago
  Nowadays a NOSTR "relay" isn't exactly a relay any longer, is it? Should likely be called a "database server" since it's main purpose is to host user data and perform queries over it. A relay is something connecting two devices and makes a best effort to get out of their way. Nevertheless: NOSTR is the most exciting social network that I've seen in the past 20 years. The concept of owning the keys without a blockchain associated enables not just decentralization, it also permits a complete offline functioning to login, view private messages and so much more that isn't possible from any other popular social network predecessor.
  • Retr0id 10mo ago
    One of nature's many attempts to evolve an atproto. (We are of course all evolving, and the destination is yet to be discovered)
    • nunobrito 10mo ago
      I've been looking at that for quite some time, even met teams members developing the product. Sorry to say: both are fundamentally different technologies and philosophies. NOSTR "accounts" are meant to trivially generated and used outside the context of micro-blogging. That is the reason for being popular, the npub becomes a signature that validates texts and there is value in that. AT always feels like mastodon meets RSS with US-centric political moderation on top.
      • knowtheory 10mo ago
        I wouldn't write ATProto off as just microblogging, there are a bunch of interesting (and exciting depending on your POV) apps out there that _aren't_ microblogging apps. To name a few: * https://stream.place https://stream.place * https://tangled.org https://tangled.org * https://www.germnetwork.com/ https://www.germnetwork.com/ * https://slices.network/ https://slices.network/ * https://smokesignal.events/ https://smokesignal.events/ * https://www.graze.social/ https://www.graze.social/
        • 10mo ago
• gaigalas 10mo ago
  > Take some ordinary, off-the-shelf servers. Treat them as dumb, untrusted pipes. Sounds like REST. The original REST, not the botched CRUD that companies pushed for. https://roy.gbiv.com/pubs/dissertation/fielding_dissertation.pdf https://roy.gbiv.com/pubs/dissertation/fielding_dissertation... > The combination of layered system and uniform interface constraints induces architectural properties similar to those of the uniform pipe-and-filter style. See also Figure 5-8. The dissertation is all about deriving that network style.
  • sharperguy 10mo ago
    The key thing is that all messages are signed and have a few standard fields, making them easy to replicate across many relays while maintaining the ability to verify their origin. And the second thing being that it is based on websockets, allowing the client to maintain an open connection and have new data be pushed instantly rather than relying on polling.
    • gaigalas 10mo ago
      Have you read the document I linked? I refered to a specific quote and figure in the dissertation. Otherwise, I'm afraid we're comparing it with something else.
    • dahrkael 10mo ago
      sorry but why is the "web" part relevant for that? cant you keep a normal tcp or udp connection open?
      • sharperguy 10mo ago
        Yes as with many things these days it just makes it easier to integrate with existing systems, like web browsers. So you can have an entire client built into a web page without needing special server software to translate between NOSTRs native connection to a websocket. Plus it makes hosting easier in some cases.
• bflesch 10mo ago
  I feel projects like nostr ignore inherent human requirements for social networks. This is a striking quote from their landing page: "Nostr doesn't subscribe to political ideals of "free speech" — it simply recognizes that different people have different morals and preferences and each server, being privately owned, can follow their own criteria for rejecting content as they please and users are free to choose what to read and from where." Their statement underlines the fact that nostr is a stream of dirty sewage and they want users to submit their valuable user-created content into this sewage. Then they turn around and say that the sewage is not a problem because you can filter it and even use it as drinking water later on! I don't see how a person with real-life social rank and social capital will sign up to something like this, or be willing to maintain a technical interface to the "stream of different morals". You'd need to put immense trust into the "filtering" process so that you are not involuntarily exposed to rubbish. And on the other hand your valuable user-generated content could be showing up in another context with your name attached, directly next to some extremely degenerate trash created by "people with different morals" as nostr calls it. Advertisers have big problems when their brands are advertised next to problematic topics, it is the same with people. How can you rationalize this as a good value proposition? People want to impress an audience with their user-generated content. And you only want to impress someone you look up to. If I could sign up to a social network of people who can put a nail into the wall, take a daily shower, brush their teeth, and live in a democratic country I would immediately do so. If I want to get exposed to "different morals" I just open any of the other existing social networks. Until then I'm stuck here :P
  • AuthAuth 10mo ago
    One could easily test the author's conviction on "rejecting content as they please" by spamming them with horrible stuff for a few months and the author would learn why 100% of content moderation should not be pushed on the individual user.
    • mhitza 10mo ago
      I think that moderation should be pushed to the individual user to avoid censorship, but not in the form it's currently implemented by all these platforms. To give an example on how I think moderation should work. If I follow you and you follow me on some nonexistent platform Y. You see the content I upvote, and I can see the content you upvote. So we'd start with block all by default, with transparency of why something is in one's list. I pitched a P2P platform like this years ago to NLNet (taking heavy inspiration from I2P's Syndie app, minus the funky UX), though I didn't manage to get any funding due to missing clout as a public developer; to lead such an effort.
• lazzlazzlazz 10mo ago
  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.
  • sharperguy 10mo ago
    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.
  • treyd 10mo ago
    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.
    • shark_laser 10mo ago
      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.
• int32_64 10mo ago
  With millions of daily users Mainline DHT is the most successful truly decentralized social network. Successful decentralization is about incentives, and Mainline DHT's incentive is downloading digital media for free.
  • beeflet 10mo ago
    Yeah I think this nostr stuff is a dead end. Social media should be bittorrent-like
  • bawolff 10mo ago
    Yeah, but is it a social network? I think the blogosphere is the most succesful distributed social network. People just dont like viewing it that way.
  • noman-land 10mo ago
    I asked this in another comment, but why aren't we using DHTs for peer discovery for social apps? The ratio mechanic provides incentives in the file sharing realm, but you need different incentives for the threaded chat realm.
    • attila-lendvai 10mo ago
      check out https://ethswarm.org https://ethswarm.org it's only the storage infra, though. but it stores content, nodes, and messages in the same DHT.
• WastedCucumber 10mo ago
  For who might be pulled in by the vague title, not knowing what a nostr is, thinking this article has anything to do with evolution - it has nothing to do with evolution or nature. Not one example of nature trying to evolve a nostr is descibed. Maybe like... the author thought a nostr is similar to, I dunno, a pack or tribe or something?
  • viccis 10mo ago
    It's clearly a tongue in cheek joke about the progression of projects with similar goals that reach imperfect outcomes, with the implicit assumption that Nostr represents the ideal solution.
  • bawolff 10mo ago
    I mean, i thought it was pretty clear - its a using convergent evolution as a metaphor for recenr developments in distributed apps. (Whether the author is convincing on the other hand...)
  • nl 10mo ago
    I thought the journal Nature was doing some decentrailized publishing thing.
  • CGamesPlay 10mo ago
    There was a “nature keeps evolving crabs” meme that was floating around a while back, I think it is a reference to that. I was also disappointed by the lack of nature, evolution, and crabs in the article.
  • immibis 10mo ago
    Nature has successfully evolved an Israeli Nostr: almost every mammal has at least one nostr.il
• rglullis 10mo ago
  Nostr will always be a fringe network. The normies do not want to manage their own keys.
  • beeflet 10mo ago
    they already manage passwords and passkeys. It isn't that complicated.
    • rglullis 10mo ago
      https://xkcd.com/2501/ https://xkcd.com/2501/
      • beeflet 10mo ago
        how is it any more difficult than taking care of a password?
        • rglullis 10mo ago
          It is not about the difficulty, it's the potential consequences. People also take care of their house keys and their wallets, but If I lose the keys to my house, it isn't automatically taken over by squatters and if I lose my ID card I can issue a new one quickly. What happens if you lose the cryptographic key to your nostr account? Who do you call for help?
        • verdverm 10mo ago
          Can I click a link to reset my keys? What happens when the key is lost, and the consequences like "lose all your money" or "lose your account access" are non-starters, as someone who owns a hardware key for my email account Multi-sig wallets are even more complicated and not for normies
          • beeflet 10mo ago
            what happens if you lose your password? You click a link to reset it, and it gets sent to your email. What happens if you lose access to your email password? It is the same problem.
• stonogo 10mo ago
  The presentation of blockchains as some kind of historical imperative would be downright Marx-like if it weren't for the primary difference that Marx put some thought into justifying his position. It's eminently possible to cryptographically secure software without lugging around an immutable distributed database because you're emotionally invested in the idea.
  • beeflet 10mo ago
    the blockchain is useful in solving double-spending problems in purely p2p applications. Aside from cryptocurrency, take for example name systems like namecoin or ENS: these systems need a way of reconciling who owns what, which involves synchronizing some data across the whole network. It is inefficient, but the inefficiency seems to lie at some fundamental problem with p2p. Centralized systems need to do the same synchronization, but between fewer actors, and may outsource some of the verification for an exponential increase in speed.
    • jazzyjackson 10mo ago
      blockchain isn't inefficient because it's p2p. it's inefficient because it assumes peers are untrustworthy and solves for that by imposing a proof of work, requiring cooperative peers to waste more electricity than bad actors.
      • Nevermark 10mo ago
        > because it [acknowledges the plain fact that unknown] peers are untrustworthy FTFY
      • beeflet 10mo ago
        assuming peers are trustworthy is assuming away the whole problem. The problem isn't with p2p, but specifically with full-sync mutexes in p2p. There are petname systems that avoid the problem by avoiding the mutex itself, and there are centralized systems that avoid the p2p, but it comes down to zooko's trilemma.
• ralferoo 10mo ago
  Reading the comments below make me feel like I should maybe be expected to already know what nostr is. But anyway, I don't and reading this article, it felt like it just suddenly cut off at the end. It explained all the traditional approaches, which are all able to help discoverability and shareability of data between servers, and then says "the solution is relays" and then describes something that doesn't seem to be relaying anything. It sounds like a single dumb, untrusted message store on a single server that doesn't relay anything anywhere. It even specifically says "Relays don’t talk to each other, and users only need to join a small number of relays to gain autonomy—at least two, and certainly less than a dozen". Not sure where the less than a dozen relay bit comes from. Are they expecting clients to do all the relaying between the relays? If so, wouldn't you get every relay getting pummeled by a load of clients simultaneously, all trying to push the same message. It sounds like the complete opposite of what you actually want. The article seems to just stop short at exactly the point when it should say how what they're proposing actually works.
  • shark_laser 10mo ago
    Check the outbox model: https://nostrify.dev/relay/outbox https://nostrify.dev/relay/outbox Why would "every relay getting pummeled by a load of clients simultaneously, all trying to push the same message"? Relays get one client pushing one message. That one message is pushed to multiple relays. 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. In this way Nostr has the benefits of centralised networks for discoverability, federated networks for communities, and private individual web site for p2p and archival purposes.
    • fc417fc802 10mo ago
      > Why would "every relay getting pummeled by a load of clients simultaneously, all trying to push the same message"? Because that is the obvious thing that would happen without further implementation details. A few large relays taking the brunt of the vast majority of the network. It isn't an inherently scalable architecture. Of course you can do other stuff in addition and thereby achieve scalability. At least arguably. But then a relevant explanation needs carefully walk through those additional non-obvious details.
• krautburglar 10mo ago
  It is all wishful thinking and beside the point. Pubkey auth and normies do not mix. They lose their keys, their identity, their history, then back to zuck or elon’s plantation where things can be administratively resolved.
  • digitalbase 10mo ago
    Same point as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46282964 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46282964 Disagree though, people manage keys just fine, or they can be thought. But even if there are people in the world that never get it, it could be outsourced to a central identity provider that manages your key and messages. For the end user they would have a user/password combo they can reset. If the network becomes more popular someone will definitely build something like that. The technical capabilities (remote signers, bunkers, ...) already exist
    • krautburglar 10mo ago
      rglullis wrote that they "do not want to". I went a step further, expressing that they couldn't even if they wanted to. Not necessarily from lack of understanding so much as poor computing habits--malware, crashes without backups, forgetfulness, post-it notes in the same household as untrustworthy relatives, etc. Normies need the administrative solution, but then we're back to Sauron.
• leephillips 10mo ago
  “my emails are just not delivered anymore. I might as well not have an email server.” FUD. I and many others on HN run our own email servers with essentially no delivery problems.
  • Diti 10mo ago
    Really? How did you manage to get past the Outlook blocks? Those were always the problematic ones for me.
    • leephillips 10mo ago
      After setting up dkim, dmarc, etc. I've had no problems in the past decade except for one person using aol. I told him that his email was broken and if he wanted to receive my email he needed to fix it. I don’t count such things as deliverabilty problems, but as receivability problems on the other end. I’ve never sent any kind of bulk email and I suppose my host has a good IP. Everything I do depends critically on email deliverability, often to addresses I’ve never sent to before, so if I had a problem I would certainly know about it.
• noman-land 10mo ago
  Why don't people use DHTs for peer discovery for social media?
• pyrolistical 10mo ago
  Every social media platform needs to a solution to: 1. Content discovery 2. Spam 3. Content moderation I can see relays offering unique solutions to each one. But now they are more than just dumb servers. You get to the point where you might as well just write posts locally then submit them to X, Facebook, etc. You get the same result. And if you include a cryptographic signature with each post, you can prove you are the same person across the different platforms. Boom. Same as Nostr, but with existing platforms
  • shark_laser 10mo ago
    "Boom. Same as Nostr, but with existing platforms" - Except without the ability to give and receive real value via zaps, and at the risk of being censored, and losing your entire audience at the whim of the network operators. Spam is basically a solved issue. There's both proof of work and paid relays, not to mention web or trust. It has been at absolute worst a minor annoyance. There's plenty of ways to discover content on Nostr, from hashtags to channels to location based chats to just following some interesting people. It's perhaps not as frictionless as X, but imho that's a feature not a bug.
    • acdha 10mo ago
      > It has been at absolute worst a minor annoyance. This is easy to say when there is little adoption and attackers don’t care about the network. It doesn’t mean it’ll remain true if that changes. Proof of work is much less effective when people are willing to use botnets and paid relays complicate life for regular users so there’s a cap on how aggressively that can be used.
      • shark_laser 10mo ago
        Proof of Work secures Bitcoin, and people definitely care about that.
        • therein 10mo ago
          You missed the point of what he is saying. The point is, proof of work used to post stuff to relays etc. is not solving the spam issue that Nostr is yet to face due to network effects. Your quip about people care about PoW because bitcoin uses it is just a very unrelated statement that is super off base. Nostr relays are like Discord "servers" if they were actually servers you could deploy yourself and each client had a cryptographic identity and was used in DMs. You can have the same UI to interact with them all. But they are disjoint. You can interact with people in the channels as long as you subscribe to the same "relay" etc. Also you keep bringing up Lightning as if it is successful but it is not. It failed in every way. Its model simply does not make sense unless you are a node that receives as much as it sends or sends as much as it receives. You know this yourself if you are a Lightning user. Bitcoin is cool, crypto is cool, even Nostr is cool but some of your statements are conflicting with each other and they aren't making great points. I tried Nostr but like a lot of people here have been saying, it falls short in many ways due to the way it is structured. Relays are not really relays, they are more but also less. They are like community servers. Sure you can connect to many, have the same UI, but they are still disjoint and feels lonely. You keep saying you can sign your messages and there is value there to people who are saying it is censorable in the ways they described. This is not a personal thing, I want to like Nostr and I tried using it. I can and would probably get some use out of using it as a pubsub or message delivery infrastructure for two things I want to connect but what if the relay goes down? It is like a centralized pubsub messagebox thing. But can't even do that fully. That other guy that said it is just like writing a message, signing it, posting it on X, Facebook, YouTube and BlueSky. People who follow those places can see it. There needs to be some sort of relay to relay communication (actual relaying) that needs to go on. And that wouldn't scale, even if it would work for now. Protocol itself is simple and nice to have. Could be cool as a transport. The concept is uniquely situated too but using it the way it initially came out as feels like trying to shove a square into a circular hole.
• tolerance 10mo ago
  I think the people with the soundest minds are the ones who are willing to accept that the idea of social networks as they used to be are going the way of the TRL countdown. And what they’re about to become is going to be something more like political yard signs.
• FabHK 10mo ago
  Pet peeve: > N^2 scaling: if every fed has to talk to every other fed to exchange messages, the number of connections will scale exponentially No. That's quadratic growth, which is a fairly mild form of polynomial growth, which is much much much slower than exponential growth. k k^2 2^k 1 1 1 10 100 1024 100 1e4 1e30
  • bawolff 10mo ago
    In fairness here, when it comes to large distributed networks, this type of scaling is generally unacceptable. But yes i agree its really sloppy for them to say exponential. I'd actually call it linear since what matters (mostly) is how many connections each node has to do, not the total number of connections in the system. Nonetheless imagine if email worked by making a connection to every computer in the world to check if they had mail for you. It would obviously not work.
• __MatrixMan__ 10mo ago
  I was hoping this was going to be about horizontal gene transfer.
• AceJohnny2 10mo ago
  On the one hand, I love the simple breakdown of these architectures. Are there others that the author missed? On the other hand, what're the economic incentive to run relays? If there are economies of scale, we swiftly go back to the oligarchic model.
• hosh 10mo ago
  It got me thinking: - how well does such an ecosystem resist enshittification? Given some of the other comments, Nostr itself would not. However, is that true for every relay networks? - does the Willow protocol have the same basic constraints? I know willow works with user-owned keys, but can it also organize as something similar to relays? - local-first apps organized this way would be an interesting ecosystem - how well would this work with keyhive? (Local first access control)
• supermatt 10mo ago
  The problem is that (to use the comparisons given in the article) Nostr is a statically peered superpeer. All the "downsides" of a superpeer (as the article says - "centralisation with extra steps") but without the benefit of dynamic peering thereby resulting in incomplete routing. i.e. by its nature Nostr results in a fragmented network, which ends up looking very much like the federated network, albeit more interconnected. Thats not necessarily a bad thing, but its a bit of a confused article, IMHO.
  • curtisblaine 10mo ago
    That's true. The hope is that users will favor generalist / unbiased relays (less fragmentation by design) rather than heavily biased / restricted ones. Maybe even fund them: I will pay you as long as you don't start banning large swathes of the network just because you don't like what they say. Users you follow can also advertise relays behind the scenes, so it's more probable that, if you follow a coherent set of users, you will converge on a coherent subset of relays that doesn't really feel fragmented.
• curtisblaine 10mo ago
  Something that I feel is missing in this conversation is that IMO a multi relay architecture like Nostr is not trying to solve moderation or remove it altogether: it's trying to make activist moderators less relevant. Activists, in this case, are people with a social mission that they deem it's more important than any other considerations: they think ideology K is dangerous and they are trying to prevent as many as possible recipients to be exposed to it. They will report you on Threads or Facebook to ban you, if you speak in favor of K. They will send e-mails to your employer. They will even send bomb threats to venues where you gather to celebrate K. If they are moderators, they will not only ban you if mention K in a positive light, but they will try to avoid other people from hearing K-speech as well. If they run a Mastodon instance, for example, they will have a ban list of other instances that are K-friendly, and they will make sure that, if you are using their instance, you can't see any posts about K. If you're curious about K, now you have to do the inconvenient dance of switching between two instances that in theory should be federated, but in practice are two different networks that don't speak with each other. This is good for activists, but bad for you, if you don't want to take sides on a culture war you don't really care about. A relay-based architecture makes the work of activists a bit less relevant: they can still run their instance and ban every mention of K, of course, but now you can subscribe to their instance AND another instance that doesn't ban people who speak fondly of K, and they can't limit or control that in any way. In theory (and everything is a bit theoretical at the moment), relays that heavily censor certain topics are less preferable to a generic public than relays that don't do that, so activist moderators will pay their effort to shape discourse with less participation from users. Of course, if relays ban something universally considered bad, such as spam, they will have more success than if they ban some heavily divisive point of view that 50% of the public shares. In theory, these controversial actors can even advertise friendly relays without you knowing, and your client can decide to follow them transparently (the intent is "I want content from this user", the behaviour is "follow relays they advertise behind the scenes"). Of course they have to do that before they're banned, but the point is that, for every activist relay that tries to remove K from public discourse, there will always be one or more generalist or counter-activist relay that welcomes K, and you can choose to follow both at the same time, with the same client and the same identity, and nobody can do a damn thing about it.
  • 10mo ago
• camgunz 10mo ago
  "Take some ordinary, off-the-shelf servers. Treat them as dumb, untrusted pipes. Their job is just to relay information. They don’t own the keys—you own your keys. You sign messages with your key, then post them to one or more relays. Other users follow one or more relays. When they get a message, they use your key to verify you sent it. That’s it!" This is NNTP.
• poulpy123 10mo ago
  I tried nostr once and I was very impressed by the speed of loading up the timeline, including the pictures. I wasn't interested in the content though, which was mainly about cryptos, so I didn't pursue more