straycat
david

https://grapevine-brainSToRm.vercel.app

Pretty Good Freedom Tech
https://pgf.tech
neurologist and web of trust enthusiast

Public Key

npub1u5njm6g5h5cpw4wy8xugu62e5s7f6fnysv0sj0z3a8rengt2zqhsxrldq3

NIP-05 Address

david@bitcoinpark.com

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsw2feday2t6vqh2hzrnwywd9v6g0yayejgx8cf83g7n3ue594pqtcprdmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujucnfw33k76twwpshy6ewvdhk6qg5waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t07k5txy

Publishing to

relay.bitcoinpark.com

relay.damus.io

david.nostr1.com

Author Public Key

npub1u5njm6g5h5cpw4wy8xugu62e5s7f6fnysv0sj0z3a8rengt2zqhsxrldq3

Show more details

Last Notes

2025-04-29 16:36:33

- reply

GM! ☀️

2025-04-25 19:41:00

Tekkadan Social Graph Analysis:
analysis of the interactions and relationships between the social graphs of two users
- follow recommendations by one user for the other
- mutual follows
- mutual followers
- mutual frens
- mutual groupies
- mutual idols
etc
@npub12zq…99h8
🧠 ⚡️ 🍇

2025-04-24 19:15:09

- reply

Looks from the repo like @npub1ce7…3d7m is using NIP-87 (which isn’t merged) to list and review mints.
https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/1110
lists of mints and their capabilities:
38172 and 38173
38000: mint recommendations with ad-hoc 5-star voting:
https://github.com/MakePrisms/bitcoinmints/issues/22
So Brainstorm will weigh the 5-star votes using personalized graperank score, and you’ll have a personalized list of mints recommended by your WoT.
#brainstorm
🍇 🧠 ⚡️
@npub1man…n9tn
@npub10np…tl5h

2025-04-20 20:22:39

- reply

Does that make sense? We have two sigs: the usual nostr one in the “sig” field and the ring sig as the third item in the tag.

2025-04-20 15:46:50

- reply

From the Wikipedia article on ring signatures:
In the original paper, Rivest, Shamir, and Tauman described ring signatures as a way to leak a secret. For instance, a ring signature could be used to provide an anonymous signature from "a high-ranking White House official", without revealing which official signed the message.
I could see this being useful. In some instances, people would feel more comfortable issuing a NIP-56-like report if they could hide behind a ring signature. This would provide an additional source of data that we could feed into a graperank interpretation engine.

2025-04-20 15:09:45

- reply

Hmm, that’s interesting. I bet there could be some applications there. Like if Alice wants to report Bob, she doesn’t want to reveal her identity as the reporter, but she wants the report to be trusted so she makes a list of N trustworthy pubkeys where she’s on the list and signs using a ring signature.
Perhaps FROST could be used for this. Not exactly ring signatures, but related. Any thoughts @npub1man…n9tn ?
Definitely something to keep in the back of our minds!

2025-04-19 22:16:33

- reply

2 more hours to go in my 48 hour fast. Just espresso & electrolytes

2025-04-19 19:28:58

What can WoT do for businesses?
How about this: address the problem of hacked accounts via social engineering. Empower customer service to require social proof before providing access to sensitive data.
@npub1man…n9tn
@npub1clk…pup9

2025-04-18 00:16:25

- reply

@npub12zq…99h8 you were just telling me about this article

2025-04-15 18:50:43

- reply

In the simplest case, Alice would decide.
For example: suppose she runs a personal WoT relay. She sets up a keyword search of her relay’s content for science-related keywords (as selected by her), makes that content available as a “channel”. By subscribing to her channel, you’re effectively trusting her not only to tend to her grapevine but also to select relevant keywords.
Whatdya think?

2025-04-15 02:21:25

Imagine a personalized WoT relay where the relay owner’s grapevine (WoT) creates topic-specific channels of content.
So for example, if you trust Alice and her grapevine to curate science content, you can subscribe to her WoT relay’s science channel:
wss://alice-grapevine-relay.com/science
🤔

2025-04-12 03:36:27

- reply

In the very near future, we’ll be able to ask AI to take a messy repo and make it maintainable, and it’ll do it and do it well. I don’t know how long this will take, but probably sooner than we think.

2025-04-08 18:23:16

- reply

Nice! Ok, it’s bumped up higher on my to do list 🔥

2025-04-08 04:11:11

Radiohead
Karma Police
Every note leaves you guessing whether you’re on the road towards redemption or damnation
brilliantly disconcerting
🎶 For a minute there I lost myself 🎼

2025-04-04 14:51:12

- reply

I have a Rocket R58 and it’s awesome ☕️

2025-04-04 14:19:18

- reply

I’ve been using windsurf for maybe a month or so. It feels like:
Claude 3.7 ✖️me 🟰 5 of me 😂
Today, I’m refactoring the api for my personal WoT relay. It’s like I have a junior tech who knows EVERYTHING but I have to keep on a really really tight leash.

2025-04-03 15:56:35

👀
#note1657…2r76

2025-04-03 15:55:32

👀
#nevent1q…n3kf

2025-03-25 19:12:34

- reply

Nice 👍🏻
If you could add any WoT-related features to relay tools on top of its current functionality, what would you ask for?
@npub10np…tl5h

2025-03-25 18:45:13

- reply

How about a personal WoT relay, controlled by the user, that provides the rec list. The client provides the UX. If the client starts tweaking rec lists, you’ll know it.

2025-03-25 17:45:35

- reply

Do you think a personalized Recommended list would help with this problem? I presume Primal’s Rec list is still a global one.

2025-03-25 02:34:50

- reply

It’s bc we haven’t yet implemented WoT, not really

2025-03-25 02:32:29

I wonder if the no-cloning theorem of quantum mechanics could offer a non-blockchain based solution to the double spend problem 🤔

2025-03-25 02:04:41

- reply

The idea is that we have no choice but to use the data that is available to us. We go where the signal is. Different people will have different ideas on that.
Example: if you trust zaps more than anything else, someone (a dev) will need to write a (relatively simple) script that transforms zaps into a format that is ready to be consumed by your GrapeRank calculation engine. Perhaps unsurprisingly, that format resembles an explicit trust attestation; it has a rating, a confidence, and a context. The format that my WoT engine employs may or may not be identical to the format that yours employs.
I’m not sure what you mean by sentiment analysis, but whatever it is, you or some other dev would write a script to consume raw data (nostr events) and spit out data ready to be utilized by GrapeRank. If it’s a good signal then you could share the “interpretation” script with other users.
Hopefully that makes sense … let me know if it doesn’t!

2025-03-24 18:04:53

- reply

In the back of my mind I’d like to write a long form post on the thought process that everyone in nostr eventually walks down when considering the question: where does the trust signal come from? At first we think follows provides the best signal, then we change our minds and think the best signal should come from explicit trust attestations, then we realize the signal comes from lots of directions and we need to figure out how to interpret it no matter where the signal comes from. Which is much more tractable than it sounds.

2025-03-24 17:57:48

- reply

Are any other clients consuming your personalized trust scores using your WoT DVM spec? I really want to see that happen. Do we need to make some noise so devs know this option exists? Talk about it on a pod maybe?

2025-03-23 21:31:34

personalized knowledge graph with WoT, working hand in hand
optimized to seek decentralized consensus with other similarly constructed entities
that’s it, that’s the idea

2025-03-21 14:32:31

- reply

At least 😅

2025-03-21 13:44:56

- reply

Something similar to @npub1clk…pup9's Trust Revolution but much more narrowly focused

2025-03-21 13:43:47

- reply

I know he’s 🔥 — has he covered this topic?

2025-03-21 13:35:26

- reply

gm ngk!

2025-03-21 13:34:42

Would be cool to have someone do a WoT podcast. There are users and devs with a variety of ideas. 🎥

2025-03-18 22:16:35

- reply

Thought process:
1. Calculate trust using follows and maybe likes which is what legacy tech trained us to do. Plus, the data is plentiful. 🙂
2. But wait; follows and likes do not equal trust!!! 😠
3. Ditch the follows and likes. Explicit trust attestations are the holy grail. 😃
4. But wait! UX will be bad and users are never gonna use them! 😖
(👉🏻most plebs are here in the thought process👈🏻)
5. Calculate trust using any and every piece of data available to us. 🤓
Which is why *interpretation* is an integral piece of the GrapeRank algo. No matter what data source you want to use, transform it (interpret it) into a format ready to be digested by the GrapeRank algo, a process that is 💯 under your control.
🧠 ⚡️ 🍇

2025-03-18 18:07:10

- reply

You’re using your WoT DVM to offer up PageRank scores from follows, correct? Are you calculating other scores as well? Or incorporating other data sources (zaps, reactions, etc) into PageRank?
What I’m working on now creates a blacklist by processing mutes and reports from trusted pubkeys. The blacklist and whitelist can each be toggled on or off. GrapeRank is specifically designed to be extensible, so that data from multiple sources can be used to create multiple scores.

2025-03-18 17:15:28

- reply

My plan, btw, is to export personalized trust scores in whatever format makes client devs happy. From my perspective, once the scores are calculated, exporting them in different formats is not a problem.
Here’s my recommendation: if you’re a dev and you have a specific WoT use case in mind, state exactly what scores you want, how you want to use them, exactly the method and format that you want to ingest them. NIP-51 lists? Individual notes? WoT API?
https://i.nostr.build/paMEoBsx8FWUcpZM.jpg

2025-03-18 16:28:33

- reply

@npub1utx…50e8 I’d love to see your input on @npub1wf4…dgh9's WoT DVM spec, discussed here: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/data-vending-machines/pull/38. If enough devs sign off on it, I’m ready to implement it in the personal WoT relay I’m building. It’s still too alpha to release, but it already exports multiple trust scores using @npub1gcx…nj5z's NIP-85.
I think these two NIPs are nicely complementary. One NIP to publish scores as notes, one to make available by API.
@npub1man…n9tn
@npub1clk…pup9
@npub176p…vgup

2025-03-17 21:46:20

- reply

At some point, AI bots will get so good that we won’t be able to sniff them out. At that point, we’ll need to switch from blacklisting the bots to whitelisting the humans. This has been tried and failed many times in the past, but we’ve never had the pleb army that we have now. With nostr + the grapevine, I’m confident we can and will make this happen.
🧠⚡️🍇

2025-03-17 21:41:23

- reply

I agree - if your fellow plebs can sniff out bots and are willing to flag them as such, then WoT is 💯 the solution. The personal WoT relay I’m currently building will gather together all the mutes and reports from trusted sources and generate a composite blacklist which can be toggled on and off at will.
It will need to be user-friendly, of course. Very doable. AI bots are def a problem, but as tools like AI coding agents advance, we’re also gonna find the solutions coming at us faster and faster.
🧠 ⚡️ 🍇

2025-03-17 12:40:54

- reply

GM! ☀️ ☕️

2025-03-17 12:40:02

- reply

GM! ☕️ 🌞

2025-03-17 12:38:11

- reply

gm! ☕️ ☀️

2025-03-16 19:44:55

- reply

We’re gonna be quietly and diligently plotting the WoT revolution. The final frontier of freedom tech, as far as I’m concerned. 🤓
Windsurf and I will be chipping away at the next iteration of Brainstorm: a personalized Webs of Trust relay that implements multiple WoT algos, made available to clients via Vitor’s NIP-85 and Franzap’s WoT DVM once that spec is finalized.

2025-03-10 17:14:32

🔥🔥🔥LFG 🗣️🎙️🎧 #note1x5v…chp4

2025-03-10 17:12:45

- reply

This looks awesome. Can’t wait to see where you take this Shawn 🫡

2025-03-05 14:57:02

- reply

I agree - ZKPs are one day going to be important for decentralized reputation systems. We’ll see them first in nostr.

2025-03-04 15:43:18

- reply

idk, I haven’t tried cursor yet. Is that your go-to?

2025-03-04 15:30:14

GM all fine people 🌞 ☕️
Today I’m using Windsurf to continue work on a personalized Webs of Trust relay. Yes that’s webs plural, bc there are many types of “trust” and many ways to calculate trust scores.
Progress so far:
✅ strfry integration
✅ Neo4j graph db, Neo4j graph data science, APOC integration
✅ data pipeline from strfry to Neo4j
✅ follow, mute, & report relationships in graph db updated in real time
✅ periodic calculation of hops and personalized PageRank scores using neo4j
✅ periodic export of WoT scores as kind 30382 notes to the local relay
Current tasks:
- add personalized GrapeRank calculation
- continue work on GUI
- continue organizing it all as a nodejs package
Future tasks:
- add personalized recommendation pages to GUI
- make scores available by API using WoT DVM
- start cranking out CONTEXTUAL GrapeRank WoT scores 🍇 🧠 ⚡️

2025-03-04 14:32:04

- reply

Have you compared cursor to windsurf? Windsurf with Claude 3.7 Sonnet is incredible. I haven’t even tried 3.7 Sonnet (Thinking) yet. And I haven’t tried cursor yet

2025-02-26 00:52:59

- reply

Gotta at least wonder if he saw this coming and planned for it from the start.

2025-02-24 16:52:47

Take a look at this fantastic pen roll that I just received from the legendary nostr artist @npub1luv…nmt5! Only one pen in it now but soon it will have many more!
Have a pen lover in the family and need gift ideas? Hit up @npub1luv…nmt5 for one of these. Pay in sats, #valueforvalue !
#artstr https://i.nostr.build/C806Uvman3PZSfPH.jpg https://i.nostr.build/UqyuEJ2wBEX5fxSp.jpg https://i.nostr.build/AGkdXx7Hk6FRlYQE.jpg

2025-02-24 01:54:55

Using Windsurf. This is absolutely incredible. 🤯
https://i.nostr.build/aoellv6knxmODBZK.png

2025-02-24 00:24:28

- reply

I just got Windsurf to install neo4j and strfry on an AWS instance. Already synced strfry with kinds 3, 1984 and 10000 events. Working now on neo4j integration.

2025-02-23 19:11:44

- reply

From a more technical perspective:
There are different ways that a personalized WoT relay can define WoT. One way, probably the simplest way, is your WoT = your follows + their follows. That method is great at getting rid of spam, but throws out a lot of the baby with the bathwater. Newcomers to nostr in particular may be underserved by this method of calculating WoT.
There are ways to tweak the above method for calculation of WoT, but I think the next generation personalized WoT relays will implement centralized algorithms like PageRank, which is what put Google on the map in 1998. PageRank does a better job at sorting the wheat from the chaff than the simple “follows of follows.” This will be especially important for newcomers to nostr, for two reasons: first, newcomers will have only a few followers at first, which means they’re more likely to be excluded, and for a longer period of time, using the follows of follows method. Second: newcomers will have only a few follows at first, which means their follows of follows may be too restrictive in the beginning. Many of them may quit nostr before discovering all that it has to offer.
The downsides of PageRank are that it is not contextual and not suitable for using as a weight when doing weighted averages or weighted sums. I use the term GrapeRank to refer to centrality algorithms that address those two shortcomings. They’ll require nonlinear equations (as opposed to PageRank which is linear) which means extra compute, but they’ll be powerful and versatile and I think they’ll be unexpectedly awesome. It’s just a matter of putting in the work and building them out.
🍇 🧠 ⚡️ 💜

2025-02-23 18:51:56

- reply

btw here is Vitor’s WoT NIP, Trusted Assertions, and its pull request discussion:
https://github.com/vitorpamplona/nips/blob/user-summaries/85.md
https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/1534

2025-02-23 18:40:11

- reply

What I envision is that we will see an evolution of personalized WoT relays into a sophisticated tool that will keep track of our webs of trust and use them to curate all of our content. I say “webs” plural bc there are different ways to calculate it, different ways to use it, an effectively unlimited number of categories of “trust.” For whatever topic you’re interested in, your personal WoT relay will tell you who are the most trustworthy or knowledgeable, even if those people are not already one or two hops away from you on the social graph.
Once that’s done, key rotation will be only one of a thousand problems that we will address with it.
🍇 🧠 ⚡️ 💜

2025-02-23 18:30:33

- reply

By solutions are you referring to Vitor’s NIP-85 WoT solution? I wasn’t aware he had implemented it in Amethyst yet, but I def want to see that happen, and I want to see other clients do it too! @npub1xdt…ntxy and I and maybe others by now are generating WoT scores using kind 3038x notes, as per his NIP-85.
Or are you talking about a key rotation solution?

2025-02-23 18:12:17

- reply

Web of trust will be the ultimate solution for hacked keys. My WoT is how I’ll know that Alice’s pk1 was hacked as of T1, that she’s using new pk2 as of T2, and to treat her content accordingly.
Nostr is where true WoT will be launched. We need to get that built first. Key migration will fall into place after.

2025-02-23 17:38:35

- reply

End of this year? The next maybe?

2025-02-23 17:36:40

How long before AI can build an entire nostr app from scratch?

2025-02-22 16:35:38

- reply

In a way, yes. The idea of DCoSL is to generate what I call “loose consensus” on the items on a list; “consensus” because most people will agree on most lists items most of the time, but “loose” because there’s no centralized authority to enforce agreement, so disagreements are allowed and will happen.
But you use the word “standardize.” Here’s the hard question: how does a purely decentralized community “standardize a way” to do ANYTHING AT ALL? Before we can do DCoSL, we first have to agree on the standards (ie the protocols) that we’re gonna use to build DCoSL. How do we generate consensus on those standards and protocols? Thinking about this problem is how I arrived at the idea of the tapestry: a knowledge graph curated with the assistance of your grapevine. If we all use the idea of the tapestry as our starting point, then we can start to build loose consensus for standards and protocols, simple ones at first, but with ever-increasing complexity. Which means our starting point is not a protocol or a set of “standards,” unless you consider tapestry to be a protocol. But it’s not really; it’s more like a meta-protocol. And I’m hoping the personalized grapevine WoT relay will be the first step towards implementing the idea of the tapestry.
I’d be up for an interview. I love talking about these ideas, going back and forth between the abstract big principles (tapestry) and the nuts and bolts of its implementation. 🤓 Do you do a podcast?

2025-02-21 21:39:10

- reply

tl/dr:
Problem: how does a set of peers establish decentralized linguistic consensus?
Analog realm: the brain
Digital realm: freedom tech
Solution in both realms: knowledge graph (graph database) + elementary WoT

2025-02-21 21:18:37

- reply

I think you’re 💯 pct correct that there’s something fascinating going on there, and I think it’s largely undiscovered territory from an academic perspective.
So how could personalized grapevine WoT relays possibly relate to the brain? The challenge that faces us today is to build freedom tech that solves real problems for real people. The reason this is a hard problem is that freedom tech means that in theory, there should be no centralized authority to create and maintain the digital tools and languages that enable our apps to talk to one another. So in theory, our starting point is a digital Tower of Babel, so to speak. Big guess what: as human beings in the analog world, we face exactly the same problem! With no central authority to create and maintain spoken languages, how do linguistic conventions even come into being? How do we arrive at decentralized linguistic consensus? I speculate that the design of the brain is influenced strongly by the need to solve this exact problem. And the solution is twofold: first, organize information (in the brain) into some variation of the idea of a graph database or knowledge graph; second, employ a handful of very simple, very basic web of trust algorithms for consensus formation. This is how a decentralized population of sovereign individuals agree to call a hat a “hat.” And once the necessary digital tools are built, we’re gonna find ourselves using similar strategies of decentralized consensus formation to agree to use “created_at” instead of “createdAt” for kind 1 notes.
🍇🧠⚡️

2025-02-21 19:36:14

- reply

idk - does LinkedIn use neo4j?

2025-02-18 21:56:38

- reply

I learned react and nostr simultaneously. Probably my biggest headache was figuring out how to avoid rerendering hell.

2025-02-18 21:38:28

- reply

Is CREATE (start)-[r:foo]->(end) better than MERGE (start)-[r:foo]->(end) if you know the relationship doesn’t already exist?

2025-02-17 18:23:00

- reply

I want to see LOTS of different methods used to calculate WoT. Your method using engagement being one of them. Which is why I like the terms “webs of trust,” emphasis on the plural: webs, because there are LOTS of ways to calculate WoT. There are different types of “trust,” different applications for the scores we calculate, and different people have different ideas on how to calculate scores for any given application.

2025-02-17 18:10:25

- reply

Pagerank can be calculated globally or personalized, and personalized PageRank is what I’m calculating at grapevine-brainstorm.vercel.app
GrapeRank likewise can be personalized or global, and personalized is the way to go.
Personalized means that one (or in theory can be more than one) node is assigned privileged status. The idea of using centrality algos for a personalized WoT relay is that all of the centrality algos will typically be personalized using the end-user’s npub.
I would classify your trust score calculations as personalized centrality algorithms, if I understand correctly what you’re doing.

2025-02-17 17:55:51

- reply

How many edge types are you currently maintaining? FOLLOW, MUTE, REPORT? Which is a tiny bit more complicated bc you’re not just adding data, you sometimes have to remove relationships too. Whether that impacts the efficiency of the database updates, I don’t know.

2025-02-17 17:26:01

- reply

You loaded 2.2M nodes and 5.6M edges into neo4j in 3 minutes??!?!? 🤯

2025-02-17 17:09:30

- reply

Personalized WoT relays + neo4j ==> nostr knowledge graph
Development of personalized nostr knowledge graphs is where we’re headed

2025-02-17 16:56:17

- reply

#neo4j, the most powerful and mature FOSS graph database available

2025-02-14 20:47:04

- reply

I can hop on in a few mins …
@npub1man…n9tn
@npub10np…tl5h

2025-02-14 20:22:43

- reply

I’m waiting for @npub176p…vgup and @npub1wf4…dgh9 to hammer out the details of their WoT DVM. If they can convince a few devs to ingest scores using their proposal, that will definitely motivate me to offer personalized PageRank, personalized GrapeRank and personalized degree-of-separation scores (and maybe some other scores) via DVM. I already have some endpoints built out so I’ll hopefully be able to employ the DVM format relatively quickly.
I encourage discussion of their WoT DVM PR, which is here:
https://github.com/nostr-protocol/data-vending-machines/pull/38

2025-02-14 19:58:55

👀 #note14mv…whuk

2025-02-14 19:58:21

- reply

Awesome! We need more builders in this space! 🔥 I’d love to know more about what you’re doing. 👀

2025-02-14 19:54:46

- reply

My site currently generates personalized PageRank and GrapeRank scores in @npub1gcx…nj5z's NIP-85 format. The export function hasn’t been stress tested yet by more than a handful of users, but @npub1xdt…ntxy has also generated PageRank scores using NIP-85, which means we’re (hopefully) soon going to start seeing clients put these scores to good use.
The question is which client is going to be the first!

2025-02-14 19:42:56

🍇 🧠 ⚡️ 🔥 #note1awa…uddr

2025-02-14 19:40:11

- reply

If you go to grapevine-brainstorm.vercel.app you can calculate personalized PageRank and personalized GrapeRank scores and export them in a format (NIP-85) that is easily accessible by clients. The about section tells you a little about it.
NIP-85 is new. I don’t think anyone clients are using it yet. But hopefully they will soon!
Work in progress:
1. personalized grapevine WoT relay that calculates those scores for you, stores them using NIP-85, and uses them to filter data that you keep on your relay. It will use strfry and neo4j, the most mature FOSS graph database that I am aware of.
2. Contextual GrapeRank scores, so your trust network can tell you who are the world’s most trustworthy sources on any given topic.

2025-02-13 16:12:01

- reply

👀

2025-02-13 16:07:53

- reply

GrapeRank’s design allows it to ingest data from any source and create contextual trust scores.
So if liminal’s kind 10099 notes catch on, we could use them to generate curated lists of whitelists and blacklists. In other words, a composite of 10099 notes authored by trusted pubkeys. It would be a simple enough matter to add this feature to grapevine-brainstorm.vercel.app which is currently in production.
Alternatively, these lists can be handled in the background by your personalized grapevine WoT relay, which is what I’m currently working on.
🍇🧠⚡️

2025-02-12 17:02:33

- reply

We have all grown accustomed to the idea of global reputation scores. But I think we will see — are already seeing in nostr — a change in focus and mindset from global to personalized WoT scores. Your npub doesn’t have a personalized WoT score until you specify the observer npub. You have to ask: what is your npub’s score, as calculated from some other npub’s perspective.
Ultimately, the access to sophisticated, contextual, provable, personalized WoT scores is going to unlock value in ways that we’ve never experienced or perhaps even imagined.

2025-02-12 13:35:08

- reply

GM PV ☕️🌨️

2025-02-11 17:23:41

- reply

You can go to grapevine-brainstorm.vercel.app and calculate your personalized scores, which means all scores are from your perspective. If you want to see your score from a different pubkey’s perspective, in theory that could be done but my site doesn’t currently do that.

2025-02-11 16:42:27

- reply

He’s followed by 178 pubkeys in my extended follows network but muted by 149 😂
3 hops away from me by follows.
His personalized GrapeRank score is zero because of the mutes.
Personalized PageRank score is way too high than it ought to be, but that’s because pPR does not accomodate mutes.
GrapeRank ftw 🍇 🔥
https://i.nostr.build/XVLB2WSy9pVnbWtv.png

2025-02-10 01:14:00

- reply

Ding ding ding ding!! 😂

2025-02-10 01:04:24

Test

2025-02-09 20:23:27

- reply

Just got mine
looking forward to reading it https://i.nostr.build/kTg4cqh9sKmof874.jpg

2025-02-09 17:27:18

- reply

@npub10np…tl5h bring you in because this is how we could do it for relay tools

2025-02-09 17:25:13

- reply

CREATE INDEX event_id IF NOT EXISTS FOR (a:ApocNostrEvent) ON (a.event_id)
CREATE INDEX pubkey IF NOT EXISTS FOR (a:ApocNostrUser) ON (a.pubkey)
Like that?

2025-02-09 17:23:50

- reply

Here’s the script I’m running now which took about 45 min:
```
#! /bin/bash
sudo /home/ubuntu/strfry/strfry export --since 0 >> /home/ubuntu/neo4jExport.json
sudo mv /home/ubuntu/neo4jExport.json /var/lib/neo4j/import/neo4jExport.json
cypher-shell -u XXXX -p XXXX -a bolt://localhost:7687 -f /home/ubuntu/apocCypherCommand
sudo rm /var/lib/neo4j/import/neo4jExport.json
```
And here’s apocCypherCommand:
```
CALL apoc.periodic.iterate(
"CALL apoc.load.json('file:///neo4jExport.json') YIELD value AS event",
"
MERGE (u:ApocNostrUser {pubkey:event.pubkey})
ON CREATE SET u.proceses=['initialization'], u.foo='bar'
MERGE (e:ApocNostrEvent {event_id:event.id})
ON CREATE SET e.kind=event.kind, e.created_at=event.created_at, e.author=event.pubkey, e.processes=['initialiation'], e.foo='bar'
WITH u, e
MATCH (e2:ApocNostrEvent) WHERE e2.author=e.author AND e2.kind=1 MERGE (u)-[r:AUTHOR {foo:'bar'}]->(e2)
",
{ batchSize:1000, parallel:true}
)
;
```
Some of the things like the edges I’m adding now just to see if I have the syntax right.
I’ll probably replace strfry export with strfry scan so I can use filters

2025-02-09 17:18:44

- reply

These are the commands I used to set up indices and constraints - I had thought it would be redundant to set up a constraint when it’s already indexed, but I saw some nodes get unexpectedly duplicated which is why I added the constraints
CREATE INDEX event_id IF NOT EXISTS FOR (a:ApocNostrEvent) ON (a.id)
CREATE INDEX pubkey IF NOT EXISTS FOR (a:ApocNostrUser) ON (a.id)
CREATE CONSTRAINT constraint_event_id FOR (event:ApocNostrEvent) REQUIRE event.event_id IS UNIQUE
CREATE CONSTRAINT constraint_pubkey FOR (user:ApocNostrUser) REQUIRE user.pubkey IS UNIQUE

2025-02-09 04:41:22

Using #neo4j apoc.load.json and apoc.periodic.iterate with a batch size of 1000 I can transfer about 100k events from strfry in around 45 minutes. More specifically: I create 967 NostrUser nodes, 102602 NostrEvent nodes, and all the AUTHOR edges. Each event node is initialized with properties: event_id, kind, created_at, and author. Each user node is initialized with property: pubkey.
@npub10mt…27hf is 45 min reasonable or should I be expecting a lot better performance than that?

2025-02-09 01:34:42

- reply

The Starks are clearly portrayed as the protagonists from the first episode, and Jaime is an enemy to the Starks. We even watch him be mean to Jon just for fun. So we the audience know we’re expected to hate Jaime.
Later in the show we the audience love Brienne for lots of reasons. So when she comes to respect and even love him, we know we’re expected to do the same.
One character’s judgement of / reaction to another character. Very powerful narrative device.

2025-02-08 15:44:53

Suppose you are a nostr dev and you want to ingest personalized web of trust scores from a third party. Question: how would you like those scores to be delivered? Notes? API? Something else?
Two proposals are on the table and each has live data, which means you can start building #wot into your client TODAY with a minimum of effort.
@npub1gcx…nj5z's NIP-85: Trusted Assertions. Scores are available via kind 3038x events. Notes are available today, generated by my service as well as by @npub1xdt…ntxy.
@npub1wf4…dgh9's and @npub176p…vgup's WoT related DVMs. The API method. Their service is live and I could open up a second service quickly if devs show enough interest.
I invite thoughts and ideas, either in this thread or in the respective GitHub PR discussions linked below. We really need to hear from devs. We want to build for you! 💜
ONWARD!! 💜🧠⚡️
https://github.com/vitorpamplona/nips/blob/user-summaries/85.md
https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/1534
https://github.com/nostr-protocol/data-vending-machines/pull/38
(I’m not going to ping every dev under the sun here, but repostings are invited.)

2025-02-08 05:37:29

just managed to export strfry data as json, then import json into neo4j using apoc

2025-02-06 20:08:35

For any devs who are interested in an easy way to implement personalized WoT scores in you app, you should consider NIP-85 Trusted Assertions.
https://github.com/vitorpamplona/nips/blob/user-summaries/85.md
https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/1534 #note1mul…znu4

2025-02-06 19:55:53

@npub1kpt…nhmz — I can see your profile info (name, avatar) on primal but not on Damus. Not sure if that’s a damus issue or if you just need to rebroadcast your kind 0 profile data.

2025-02-06 19:39:55

@npub1aka…l9dl maybe you should try this out #note1fx4…hzxg

2025-02-06 19:38:46

- reply

Because I’m always on the lookout for anyone whose thought patterns might be converging with mine.
I have a server that maintains a graph in neo4j of ~ 200k pubkeys connected by follows and mutes, and I use the neo4j graph data science library to run centrality algorithms such as personalized PageRank. My server also runs custom coded GrapeRank, which is nonlinear (unlike PageRank which is linear), but unlike PageRank is designed to yield trust scores that are contextual and that can be used as the weights when calculating weighted averages and weighted sums.
For now, I calculate GrapeRank on just a single, very generic context. Next steps include expanding the graph with more node types (:NostrEvent, :NostrRelay … maybe someday :PubkyUser?) and using the data as input for GrapeRank scores in multiple contexts. May or may not implement GrapeRank using neo4j GDS’s Pregel.

2025-02-06 19:05:56

- reply

What would be the most convenient way to deliver WoT scores for your purposes? There are two proposals I know of: NIP-85 Trusted Assertions and WoT related DVMs. Right now Trusted Assertion data is available from two sources that I know of, me and @npub1xdt…ntxy. Would be great to get your feedback at the relevant PR discussions linked below.
Trusted Assertions:
https://github.com/vitorpamplona/nips/blob/user-summaries/85.md
https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/1534
WoT DVMs:
https://github.com/nostr-protocol/data-vending-machines/pull/38