Again - I never dug further into contracts than reading the basics of Solidity and skimming articles about SC's in Etherium - so I am not the most informed.
I don't think that Nostr provides the neccessary source of proof for that - so in that sense, "insecure" might not be the right word, but it's close enough.
Here's a link: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/755
I get that Nostr, as a protocol, can technically be anything and everything. But... Does it need to?
Does it have to be the be-all-end-all? Or shouldn't it focus on the core features? Neither question has a definitive answer.
Personally, I associate smart contracts with Etherium, and indirectly Bitcoin. I would love it if Nostr wasn't so obsessed to be -coin bound. But neither do I call the shots nor should anyone be limited. And yet, I hope this does not see an implementation as I feel it would further pull Nostr into the "Crypto Bubble" that I think it shouldn't be in.
Or, in more rudimentary phrasing: I don't want to see Nostr destroy itself by adapting all the things it doesn't need; I don't want to see it ruined.
That said, I should go and read more on those smart contracts, then revisit the PR. Mulling it over with half-baked knowledge isn't right, nor fair to the one proposing the NIP.
IngwiePhoenix / Ingwie Phoenix
npub1tc…hjmky
2023-08-31 23:35:39
in reply to nevent1q…u32g
Author Public Key
npub1tcekjparmkju6k83r5tzmzjvjwy0nnajlrwyk35us9g7x7wx80ys9hjmkyPublished at
2023-08-31 23:35:39Event JSON
{
"id": "0000dc8323aea15365fe57d4a59308c4497c50ffd8caf10f3d408adaddf04a83",
"pubkey": "5e336907a3dda5cd58f11d162d8a4c9388f9cfb2f8dc4b469c8151e379c63bc9",
"created_at": 1693524939,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"00018af87b95ddfa79948b13a817fdc5568f7ed70990cc1da6231e2370fbaed8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"24869a977a78a7d9c901987b81ff3a3069b5d114aee9ae22742f38e708777b9a",
"wss://nos.lol/",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"de7ecd1e2976a6adb2ffa5f4db81a7d812c8bb6698aa00dcf1e76adb55efd645"
],
[
"nonce",
"2142",
"15"
]
],
"content": "Again - I never dug further into contracts than reading the basics of Solidity and skimming articles about SC's in Etherium - so I am not the most informed.\n\nI don't think that Nostr provides the neccessary source of proof for that - so in that sense, \"insecure\" might not be the right word, but it's close enough.\n\nHere's a link: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/755\n\nI get that Nostr, as a protocol, can technically be anything and everything. But... Does it need to? \n\nDoes it have to be the be-all-end-all? Or shouldn't it focus on the core features? Neither question has a definitive answer.\n\nPersonally, I associate smart contracts with Etherium, and indirectly Bitcoin. I would love it if Nostr wasn't so obsessed to be -coin bound. But neither do I call the shots nor should anyone be limited. And yet, I hope this does not see an implementation as I feel it would further pull Nostr into the \"Crypto Bubble\" that I think it shouldn't be in.\n\nOr, in more rudimentary phrasing: I don't want to see Nostr destroy itself by adapting all the things it doesn't need; I don't want to see it ruined.\n\nThat said, I should go and read more on those smart contracts, then revisit the PR. Mulling it over with half-baked knowledge isn't right, nor fair to the one proposing the NIP.",
"sig": "6392fa3979c6be513d410b80ce25079e87eb02e1d26cf45b89dbca58a6f8e86dc175bfc4bae55781535ca51b306ac80633175f3cfe5703c39ec1e85f8ff936d1"
}