I really should have worded that better, I’m sorry -
re mathematical modelling - this on relay connectivity ie how private, safe and spam relays work from a user and x no. of users perspective - in terms of broadcasting, re broadcasting. I get the gist, but I can’t fully envision the big picture with all possibilities included such as 2nd / 3rd tier restriction / gossip / Iris models and the outcome of each
re spam (I could be completely wrong on this) - current practice out there is keyword filters, manual filter, image filters.
What if this was looked at differently from the spam motive perspective, for instance
- porn related
- Gov’t’s cyberwarrior attacks
- Money and trades
From a porn angle, if there are private porn relays, users who enjoy porn might be more compelled to interact with porn related spam (what’s spam to one might not be spam to another) - would that then narrow down global broadcast/rebroadcast via engagements ? Somewhat like when Satoshi talked abt reducing spams by Incentivising zombie farms to generate bitcoins instead. What if it’s just about benefiting those who want to view porn ?
From gov’t cyberwarrior perspective - for example opposition parties or gov’t who attack on each other’s users - and hence if there were more politics related relays - would that shift the focus from global to specific users of the relays. And then from there the problems can be further narrowed down via shared blocklist/ users muting ?
From money scammer’s perspective - this most often is quite obvious and hence would shared blocklist help ? I think it requires keyword filtration as well?
The challenge with shared blocklist could be that what’s spam to one might not be to another so this may need a second filter layer I’d reckon.
All this might be completely naive thoughts,
pam
npub1pv…kdx8c
2023-02-15 13:51:08
in reply to nevent1q…tqfe
Author Public Key
npub1pvgcusxk7006hvtlyx555erhq8c5pk9svw57snlxujpkgnkup89sekdx8cPublished at
2023-02-15 13:51:08Event JSON
{
"id": "09c975bce7dc1220ce68a553b7290266721b8bc7c6601cd9b45d5b6166eb63b3",
"pubkey": "0b118e40d6f3dfabb17f21a94a647701f140d8b063a9e84fe6e483644edc09cb",
"created_at": 1676469068,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"fca82fb10cc672b9308ac46af6712c54c8b28b92c0c90956aed3daa0fab3642a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5f061da2b5a6f70f8ed07ad2ebcf8750742c850074947a7dd4ba41cf32b8ef1b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d"
],
[
"p",
"0b118e40d6f3dfabb17f21a94a647701f140d8b063a9e84fe6e483644edc09cb"
],
[
"p",
"78874d3b60d9d1ced943cb3af358128e6e2e4e1c33a3daea21bcd5731584216c"
]
],
"content": "I really should have worded that better, I’m sorry - \n\nre mathematical modelling - this on relay connectivity ie how private, safe and spam relays work from a user and x no. of users perspective - in terms of broadcasting, re broadcasting. I get the gist, but I can’t fully envision the big picture with all possibilities included such as 2nd / 3rd tier restriction / gossip / Iris models and the outcome of each\n\nre spam (I could be completely wrong on this) - current practice out there is keyword filters, manual filter, image filters. \n\nWhat if this was looked at differently from the spam motive perspective, for instance \n- porn related \n- Gov’t’s cyberwarrior attacks \n- Money and trades \n\nFrom a porn angle, if there are private porn relays, users who enjoy porn might be more compelled to interact with porn related spam (what’s spam to one might not be spam to another) - would that then narrow down global broadcast/rebroadcast via engagements ? Somewhat like when Satoshi talked abt reducing spams by Incentivising zombie farms to generate bitcoins instead. What if it’s just about benefiting those who want to view porn ?\n\nFrom gov’t cyberwarrior perspective - for example opposition parties or gov’t who attack on each other’s users - and hence if there were more politics related relays - would that shift the focus from global to specific users of the relays. And then from there the problems can be further narrowed down via shared blocklist/ users muting ? \n\nFrom money scammer’s perspective - this most often is quite obvious and hence would shared blocklist help ? I think it requires keyword filtration as well? \n\nThe challenge with shared blocklist could be that what’s spam to one might not be to another so this may need a second filter layer I’d reckon. \n\nAll this might be completely naive thoughts,",
"sig": "240c1590295c235b776ff00a2645fa2415181dd3b00744a19fa134bc93e56c119175d7ebc153b927f48164fc0a47fa72620e47616ec70fae0a3cb6d579fc8d97"
}