I don't care about ETH but... zoom out.

I got it, thanks.

Why I'm still getting sats in the SN wallet even if I configured the external one? At the beginning I got some p2p incoming/payment transaction, now only the SN wallet is used.

Rails continues to be pretty damn cool!

I think "askSN" should be an attribute/tag of a post, like "showSN". Having a territory full of questions on different topics make little sense to me. So I'm not surprised that people prefer to use topical territories to post their questions, this natural match possible users able to reply.

Years ago I researched on this matter and I trained a bit to have lucid dreams, finally I had a couple of experiences. They are really interesting, sometimes scary. I think they can be a really powerful tool to improve yourself, also spiritually. I need to try them again.

It's a permissions-less protocol from both sides, you are free to do that, but take note that less people will see you edits.

As explained is a techical mess to implement it while keeping a decentralized nature. But, just talking about the UX, how do you associate the replies and the reactions/zaps to the different versions?

@fiatjaf took great care not to add any Timechain thing in Nostr.

You cannot be sure to fetch all the revisions, exactly how you are not sure to load all comments, so you risk to read something outdated, while the comments happily and chaotically refer to different versions.

@ek FYI

In fact, maybe I overestimated these big tech circuses:

Ah ok, sorry I misread your comment. Thank you for the discussion!

Do we have history now, just for the 10 min edit timespan? I used this edit feature, it's handy, it gives you the freedom to write quickly knowing that you can correct, but it also imposes careful follow-up because you cannot exceed the time limit.

It's a supposition, I don't have first hand informations. But big tech social have huge social and legal pressures, they already have complex moderation system in place, I was not surprise if the use them in some other contexts.

I worry about this too, it is not an easy journey. And that is why it is very important that these discussions arise to share as many points of view as possible, thank you for your accurate feedback.

Sure, as I already replied you here yesterday I pointed out this exact alternative :)

Staying with the topic: why did SN decide to limit edits to 10 minutes and not leave them free? I suppose it was a reasoned choice; it could provide additional insights. Btw, it's a very good compromise, that unfortunately we cannot apply on Nostr.

Yes, I say that, I think this control is done by measuring the potential negative effects of an update. It is not difficult for an AI to analyze the text, only when the context requires it (great exposure and many responses/reactions already recorded), assessing the underlying risks.

Btw, when you hit save, you think that the post have been updated, but often this doesn't happens in real time, it's a background process that, perhaps, include also this sort of checks.

Github is not a “social,” it is a forum with a very technical target audience in which the chances of a manipulation having profound effects at the social level is minimal, and thus the benefits of the edit function clearly outweigh the possible damage caused by a malicious edit.

My argument is that edits overcomplicate things, especially at this time of development. If you wrote something wrong simply delete the note or comment/annotate it. Maybe it's not the best solution for all, but I think it's a reasonable tradeoff.

You are right, I was hasty in saying that no social network supports them.

Let's say that those who introduced them did so later and perhaps in premium contexts (related to content producers); most likely, because it is a centralized system, there is active monitoring (done by people or by an AI) of when and how a post is changed, to see if the change is just a minor update or integration, or upsets the meaning of the post itself, including in relation to feedback received so far.

All of this is clearly not possible on Nostr, as it is permissionless and decentralized, so tradeoffs are needed, and user expectations should relate to such limitations, understanding that those who are working on the protocol often act with a broad technical view, and do not just pick and choose for personal taste, and maybe trying to be prudent as well, managing priorities. Of course, it would be important for such views to be explained to all user groups, which is no small task.

I agree ;) https://njump.me/nevent1qqsgc7zu8nn9dzcpusyaxulmqkxgtfc3jau5pm5he5mn77a9452swngpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzvuhsygrmmmmmugka3evlgcqwq3922wsul966nhrayl04svauwldhsjjcq5psgqqqqqqsllzvun

But this is a client feature, more of a UI trick; I suppose the OP was suggesting a protocol restriction.

Edits are not so useful for short notes, but they add a huge complexity both at protocol level and at UI/UX level. Just talking about the latter, as you said, the history have to be kept, otherwise big problems can arise if someone changes the message after replies/reactions/zaps have been sent. But Is extremely hard and confusing to show these feedbacks connected with the proper message. In fact, no other social network supports edit. It's easier to add a comment (or an annotation, as one NIP proposes) to clarify the matter, or just delete and post the note again.