reply on: The case against edits on Nostr, by fiatjaf \ stacker news ~nostr

pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @didiplaywell 8 Nov \ parent \ on: The case against edits on Nostr, by fiatjaf nostr

Thank you for the clarification. Do that same limitation applies to nostr-based wikis? Because if it does then wikis should not even be proposed! Thank you for that warning

I have heard that they want to implement git on nostr too, but once again if it's impossible to be certain if all the information has been fetched, then it shouldn't even be mentioned, it's a ticking time bomb!

4 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 8 Nov

This whole discussion about edits only applies to kind:1 events aka short text notes:

Edits are fine in other, more specialized event kinds, but the kind:1 space shouldn't be compromised with such a push towards centralization, because kind:1 is the public square of Nostr, where all focus should be on decentralization and censorship-resistance.

54 sats \ 2 replies \ @didiplaywell 8 Nov

Owwwwww got it, thank you!!! Then yes, in that context edits are a completely unneeded pushover and twitter is the proof. That does it for me, I side with Fiatjaf.

Except that I don't share his view on "we are not following the market". We absolutely ARE following the market on Nostr. That's the ONE thing we are doing with Nostr: we are making it full blown about the market. The problem with the degeneration of the other apps is that they are not about the market but about the shareholders, so the degeneration is caused because the signals of the market are not important anymore but only the signals of the shareholders, which demand specific metrics, so the apps focus on those metrics in complete disregard of the metrics the market demands.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @fiatjaf 17 Nov

I think I get your feeling, but I wasn't speaking against that.

My point is more that every person is the market and every action changes the market direction to some degree, so no one can really "just follow", you have to make the market.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @didiplaywell 18 Nov

Allow my autism to stretch this a bit further in regard to the phrasing we are using.

I understand from your phrasing that while you can supply what the market demands, you can't not take the word of the market on how to actually make it. This is a well known effect, traditionally illustrated by the Simpsons episode Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?.

But I would like to separate that from the demand itself. To "follow the market" is to hear and answer the overall demand of the people. That was my case: I was looking for something like Nostr and I was more than happy to find it. You saw the need and you provided a solution. Now if I demand that I want to be able to edit "tweets", you know that I actually don't want to, that what I want is a communication system that's not a walled garden. A similar effect happened to me when I was looking for note taking apps: I was looking for an app full of features I thought I needed, and when I found the apps that provided it, the experience ended up being a bloated, laggy, cluttered and unwieldy mess, and I found out that I was way better off with plain txt notes. Then I understood that I did not needed anything of what I thought I needed, and reasoned better my way towards obsidian and it ended up being absolute gold and never looked back: I did not needed complex mind-mapping graphs and integrations and etc. My overall demand was "I need a note-taking tool", but I didn't knew I only needed my file structure in the left, my content structure in the right, and my outlines in the middle, to get it. Simple, efficient. I vow for core Nostr to be the same.