pull down to refresh
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @TheBTCManual 23 Feb 2023 \ on: Could scaling Nostr actually kill it? nostr
I don't think it kills it but it will have to change, if you're just interested in niche topics, lets say you're into coin collecting and thats your community, the current model is fine but if you're talking about getting into politics or news where people would all congregate and dogpile in their bad takes and opinions, then the client, will need to offer an aggregator of some kind sourcing from relays and trying to be a bridge.
Not sure how far it can go or how efficient it becomes but lets see
You make a good point on bandwidth which would be a problem, in my global south countries your telecoms providers actually have direct deals with the likes of Facebook and Twitter to route traffic to these sites at special rates or even for free subsidising the traffic to increase DAU, new users and ofcourse ad revenue, doubt nostr can compete with that
Not only in the global south. Competition for smooth and fast user experience is such that most content providers at global scale own even the submarine fiber than runs from continent to continent, relay stations, landing stations, multi megawatt datacenters for in-country or regional distribution of content and the edge layer at the ISP level where based on you IP range they ship free the HW to proxy content and have it fast deployed to users at very low latency.
ISPs give free landlord services (they have no alternative) to this large content providers: rackspace, power, cooling and basic hw operation in exchange of barely cuting their carrier bandwidth costs.
IMHO, ISPs are key to develop Nostr at a higher scale, and instead of leaving them with crumbles on the table they should be running HW for Nostr the way that miners process the BTC transactions. I don't see any other model succeeding that won't include a seat in the table for ISPs.
ISPs need to be an ally to Nostr, since content distribution is a thing ISPs been doing all the work with continuous diminishing returns.
reply