One thing we should be questioning is the way we’re using (and thinking) about relays today in one capacity...
I think this idea of spraying public relays with our content might be wrong.
And we’re making all these decisions across the board on this idea.
Maybe:
I should really only post a given note to one relay intentionally for public consumption and 1 or more other relays strictly for backup.
Lots of things could be done but imagine some relays offer a /backup endpoint strictly for storage but not to expose publicly.
If I’m censored I can either request one of my backup relays to convert my posts to public or give me an expert so I can post them to a new relay when I want to switch or I am censored.
This would be way better because now there isn’t all this noise in a relay / across relays.
Now the idea of clients becoming browsers of relays makes much more sense and things get a lot clearer for users.
You don’t end up with this “why am I seeing the same post everywhere I go” and, from a design perspective, how do I show users this multiplexed view of a note.
And relays can emerge as identifiable things which they really need to be for nostr to work.
It really doesn’t make sense to spray the way we’re doing it now is what I’m saying.
aaron / A. A. RON
npub14l…37m8m
2023-02-03 01:04:47
in reply to nevent1q…pgv3
Author Public Key
npub14lu6nuqh7v4jazmqw49yzqkmnkw0nletjeuqfdgwqurcp2j9ex5qz37m8mPublished at
2023-02-03 01:04:47Event JSON
{
"id": "6949498d57dd4fc977a698a44b262a4c2ce966d955c7ecd2baf191ddd1fa09d8",
"pubkey": "aff9a9f017f32b2e8b60754a4102db9d9cf9ff2b967804b50e070780aa45c9a8",
"created_at": 1675386287,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a2822b81b7d1ffe78ab5dab5bed765e2907f47549527f5d74bc99358622b7b51",
"wss://nostr.mom"
],
[
"e",
"c307f11d1d699f03b25a45afe37e3dba53fdac1c860414c0df33c7240ecc45b2"
],
[
"p",
"3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d"
],
[
"p",
"3f770d65d3a764a9c5cb503ae123e62ec7598ad035d836e2a810f3877a745b24"
],
[
"p",
"ee11a5dff40c19a555f41fe42b48f00e618c91225622ae37b6c2bb67b76c4e49"
]
],
"content": "One thing we should be questioning is the way we’re using (and thinking) about relays today in one capacity...\n\nI think this idea of spraying public relays with our content might be wrong.\n\nAnd we’re making all these decisions across the board on this idea.\n\nMaybe:\n\nI should really only post a given note to one relay intentionally for public consumption and 1 or more other relays strictly for backup. \n\nLots of things could be done but imagine some relays offer a /backup endpoint strictly for storage but not to expose publicly.\n\nIf I’m censored I can either request one of my backup relays to convert my posts to public or give me an expert so I can post them to a new relay when I want to switch or I am censored.\n\nThis would be way better because now there isn’t all this noise in a relay / across relays.\n\nNow the idea of clients becoming browsers of relays makes much more sense and things get a lot clearer for users.\n\nYou don’t end up with this “why am I seeing the same post everywhere I go” and, from a design perspective, how do I show users this multiplexed view of a note.\n\nAnd relays can emerge as identifiable things which they really need to be for nostr to work.\n\nIt really doesn’t make sense to spray the way we’re doing it now is what I’m saying.",
"sig": "0dfae92cc6db7e897694effbf81caf983d4dbe2ac981695b07c54aa5eba06e7322d35210674934cc64fc8d948f73dc0cf5c105bf79b9090e3abada8791919a50"
}