pull down to refresh
105 sats \ 4 replies \ @dk OP 12 Mar \ parent \ on: Why no decentralized namespace yet? bitcoin
OP was prompted by a reply I got to a different post I made. (explained in the details of this post actually!)
I would like to have an npub on my twitter bio, in my email footer, etc. I have seen a lot of people use Primal links to share their profile like this: https://primal.net/dk
I am a supporter of Primal and I think they do a great job with what they're building, but primal.net/dk is yet another pointer to where my npub can be found which is my actual unique identifier.
I just see non-techies stumble when they can't figure out why they can't just choose a username like every other social network they sign up to. It feels awkward and strange when they already have a mental model/pattern for how this "should work".
Fair to say then a unique identifier thats usable by multiple nostr apps not just Primal?
If you're sharing the npub already that's ideal, but only works where copy/paste is available... I think you mean a search term that users can use in whatever app they're already into? (as opposed to a URL)
can't just choose a username
Bingo, I see this too.
I think this is at the crux of the username problem, there's no consistent application of them across the Nostr apps because every search would have to respond with strictly an opinion on who
dk should belong to.My ruminations on this are as follows, we should only need a very loose framework for arriving at those opinions. It can't get anymore fractured than it already is.
By self declaring
dk, having followers that label you as dk, perhaps some other metrics from their relay that add to a rank, Primal could easily give you weight over a lesser and rogue claimant of dk.Reputational conflict resolution.
This is non-authoritative and not truly unique ofc. It gets interesting when another platform sells influence, and takes money to assign the name
dk to someone else in their social graph that users may bootstrap from. Since their social graph differs, users weighting that platform resolve a different dk. This is basically what we have today.Which begs the next question,
Is the incentive stronger to sell reputation, or is consistency with social consensus rewarded more?
My theory is the latter, going against social conensus will eventually render what you're selling worthless. If correct, its relatively simple from a technical standpoint because it's still mostly open to interpretation (worst protocol theory) how to weight a social graph.
Only one way to find out, back to work...
reply
I think it's a mistake to think of namespace as just DNS. Assume you had a namespace that is decentralized, it does resolve to a single name and is universally accessible. It would create an alternative to trademark laws and other institutions created on the foundation of the nation-state for managing intellectual property, reputation, etc. It's a missing piece for decentralized identity. When you combine a decentralized network that enables you to control assets (bitcoin) and another one that does the same for names you can build an alternative to the State.
reply
I agree on DNS not being a target for replacement, my focus is on human readable names for keys at this point as I mentioned.
I disagree though with the step-change of utility in tokenizing titles. We can already tokenize any digital thing, but namespace is an abstract social thing.. This is why decentralized namespace hasn't worked yet, because approaches have been technical-centered instead of socially-centered.
Physical things, even if traded digitally, are ultimately enforced in the meatspace where they exist. The internet is made of physical servers, datacenters, powerplants... This inevitably results in an apex force that is the most efficient at killing people and breaking things in an area... that's not going away no matter what you want to call it.