Interesting. I’d never compared those two concepts - composability vs interoperability. Makes sense.
I sometimes wonder how tolerant a network like nostr is of disagreements or incompatibilities between clients at the protocol level, and whether this sort of tolerance is something that can be well-defined and quantified. Seems to me the NIP system makes nostr very tolerant, and this is a good thing: a small handful of NIPs is enough to make any given client compatible with most or all others. Smaller feature set, but compatible nevertheless.
In contrast: if were to build on IPFS or bluesky, my understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that I’d have to adopt basically their entire protocol (or a huge chunk of it) just to do an MVP. Imagine the state of nostr if there were 1000 NIPs and you had to adopt every single NIP from 1 to 1000 (e.g. you have to import a ref library) before releasing v0.0.1, even one with a small feature set, or else your app would break.
I don’t know what you call this feature of nostr, the fact that the “minimum requisite protocol” for a starter MVP with a sparse feature set is very small compared to alternatives. Is there a name for this? Seems like it’s worth giving it one bc it’s one of nostr’s greatest strengths imho.
straycat / david
npub1u5…rldq3
2023-08-06 20:45:39
in reply to nevent1q…hc7e
Author Public Key
npub1u5njm6g5h5cpw4wy8xugu62e5s7f6fnysv0sj0z3a8rengt2zqhsxrldq3Published at
2023-08-06 20:45:39Event JSON
{
"id": "0e1478208c06e1ef60488d6e066fd994887624c73cd6734a5ee02151f7c26192",
"pubkey": "e5272de914bd301755c439b88e6959a43c9d2664831f093c51e9c799a16a102f",
"created_at": 1691354739,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"61e6da404d624644efe70654555ce5294ce37306674fced13421b36a7763e1f6"
],
[
"e",
"36d85042b5915e66b52c87a94f21c9b9643a1ed4a34ac18afc464afe38620e47"
],
[
"p",
"460c25e682fda7832b52d1f22d3d22b3176d972f60dcdc3212ed8c92ef85065c"
],
[
"p",
"2bd0dfa208d4a1786928244b729f792eecebc71fe0dc6b24dbf236556bfd0ef6"
],
[
"p",
"460c25e682fda7832b52d1f22d3d22b3176d972f60dcdc3212ed8c92ef85065c"
]
],
"content": "Interesting. I’d never compared those two concepts - composability vs interoperability. Makes sense.\n\nI sometimes wonder how tolerant a network like nostr is of disagreements or incompatibilities between clients at the protocol level, and whether this sort of tolerance is something that can be well-defined and quantified. Seems to me the NIP system makes nostr very tolerant, and this is a good thing: a small handful of NIPs is enough to make any given client compatible with most or all others. Smaller feature set, but compatible nevertheless.\n\nIn contrast: if were to build on IPFS or bluesky, my understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that I’d have to adopt basically their entire protocol (or a huge chunk of it) just to do an MVP. Imagine the state of nostr if there were 1000 NIPs and you had to adopt every single NIP from 1 to 1000 (e.g. you have to import a ref library) before releasing v0.0.1, even one with a small feature set, or else your app would break.\n\nI don’t know what you call this feature of nostr, the fact that the “minimum requisite protocol” for a starter MVP with a sparse feature set is very small compared to alternatives. Is there a name for this? Seems like it’s worth giving it one bc it’s one of nostr’s greatest strengths imho.",
"sig": "c893deb7e82050b4946dc27a7d4e7183cb4b35672b37da5921b1eda0d1eab698a67ca3713e10708b2351c93f21053f2589c58b7ef276f27de34dd8c72324e25c"
}