pull down to refresh
HOLY COW BROO! I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO START THE SAME KIND OF PROJECT!
But I might not be able to start it anyway cuz of my big exam this year. Let me share the idea with you. First let me tell you existing projects that are similar to your idea:
- Damus (iOS): You'll find it on nostrapps.com. It is a twitter-like client with a nice UX, but no deep filtering or prioritization. Built more like a broadcast social tool than a reader.
- Amethyst (Android): Similar to Damus, social-heavy, discovery-light.
- Iris.to: Browser client. Has tagging, threading, and social graph filters but still misses semantic aggregation. Typical X copy prototype.
Iris.to: Browser client. Has tagging, threading, and social graph filters but still misses semantic aggregation and long-form curation.
NOW LET'S COME TO THE BIG SHOW.
So. I named the project: Noēsis (Greek: "direct knowing") 😤 (Btw, this will be bit hard to build since it is a neural interface)
The basic framework is as follows:
User Tells the App What They Want Via:
- Mood or Intent Setting: Instead of filters, you get a slider — “I want to learn, laugh, rage, wonder.” Adjusts tone, length, and density.
- Semantic Bookmarking: “I want more content like this” - on press, trains a local vector model. Something like Instagram likes or youtube like on reels and videos.
- Time-Attention Budget: “I have 7 minutes - give me the best 3 things I should consume right now.”
- Whitelisted Minds: Add people whose signal you trust, regardless of follower count. Mix “muted minds” to hide all posts from sources you consider untrustworthy.
- Content DNA filters: Instead of “categories,” the system uses natural language filters: “Crypto but no NFTs,” “AI but not VC hype,” “History of empires in 1-minute infographics.”
Interface Design:
- Tiled: Modular dashboard of themes. "Black Hole Week" → Shows 5 posts, 3 threads, 1 podcast. Think of it like content islands, not a timeline. Like @Cappy_SC said: A trello dashboard, something like that?
- Inline Summaries by AI: TLDRs, not headlines. Each tile has an AI-based key point digest. (RSS + ChatGPT?)
- Highlight/Remix Feature: Highlight sentences → Create new posts, visuals, or memes.
- Temporal Anchors: “Show me posts similar to what I liked last March when I was in a different headspace.”
- Explain-Why Button: Why did the app show this? Transparent vector matching + user behavior loop. Like Brainly.in
Additionally, you can attach tiny Nostr zaps to content you like. Curators can emerge naturally.
If you want relay health, popularity, and content type support:
- nostr.watch – Relay performance metrics, uptime, and reach.
- nostr.band – Search + analytics. You can see top users, event types, content formats, trending topics, etc.
- highlighter.com – Attempts to create longer-form publishing with Nostr.
- plebstr.com/relays – Another directory with focus on active, public relays.
Most used relays:wss://nos.lol,wss://relay.damus.io,wss://relay.nostr.band,wss://nostr.wine.
Hope this helps!
Probably not as big of a deal as it seems. Most other credit ratings agencies had already downgraded US debt, so it's not exactly providing new information to the market.
What I recall from previous downgrades was concern over certain large funds (like pensions) only being allowed to hold AAA rated bonds. They would then have to dump rather large treasury holdings.
Two things can happen to make that relatively unimportant: 1) the funds can change their rules and 2) other large buyers can step in at a very similar price point because the Treasury market is unfathomably deep.
Thanks for your comments.
My basis for the statement is that the value of art is subjective.
It cannot be attributed value based on data because the data doesn't exist. Maybe if AI was told a new Picasso had been unearthed, it would value it in the millions, but what about which Picasso is the best? It has to go on data provided by humans (the most expensive sale or the most revered piece in a major museum).
Finally, if humans know that art was created by a machine (with no experience, history, or toil) we value it very low.
Why are we attempting to destroy the value we create? Why are we keen to give up the pursuit of experts attributing value to art?
It will take us all time to adapt to the changes AI brings, but we should use it for tasks we don't value, not ones we do.
Thanks! I will address key points only for the sake of trying to not write an essay here. This does not mean I agree with everything else, but I guess it's useful to focus on some key things first so that perhaps I can relay why I'm not supporting your proposal in principle, and then later we can go over details if you still want to.
I think it helps a lot to explicitly declare by consensus that arbitrary data storage is not a supported use case.
[..]
So in the future, if shitcoiners attempt similar attacks again, such activity will be immediately recognized as abuse and promptly filtered.
What you're proposing is to make a statement of sorts to all the people you perceive as evil, or, if you get the 55%, that a majority by a small margin would maybe perceive as evil, by temporarily blocking some data storage in consensus, but not all. I'll come back to the "some" point later and why I think that from a technical p.o.v. you will get completely destroyed by spammers post-activation.
I have many reasons for not supporting that on its own, no matter the technical details, per my point 5,6,7 above and my original point about official, which I now realize I have really done a poor job of explaining. But, your response creates a much worse problem because it treats Bitcoin Core as authoritative. Of course, there is ample evidence of this perception being alive out there, especially within anti-Core camps, but I fear that the assignment of that isn't reality and that it definitely isn't intended as such.
Note that I do agree with you that any form of data storage for the sake of data storage alone (and meta protocols in general, no matter if it is Omni, Counterparty, Ordinals, Runes, or otherwise) is abuse. I also think that there are a lot of people that feel that way yet aren't polarized that much that they would support your proposal. The question therefore is not so much whether there is abuse, but rather whether the sacrifices you propose are worth the gains.
Official?Official?
Bitcoin Core is not official; nothing in Bitcoin is, not since Amir and other freedom maxis challenged that early on. Additionally, post-Gavin, Bitcoin Core maintainers have removed all authoritative elements first, and then, recently, current maintainers made themselves so unpopular by redefining the Github repo "rules" towards a workplace-safety centric design, that it has lost all value other than the raw merit of reviews that do not get censored. This means that it is a reference client only now, but only because it still sees more review than any other node software despite some (still relatively light) moderation.
Of course, going from defacto standard software to mere reference client is a gradual transition, and the most powerful option that always exists for a protocol would ideally be adopted while the mindset adapts: the option of doing nothing. This is extremely important and I feel that across the whole of the debate, this option is insufficiently valued. Everyone lets themselves be stressed into taking action and this is detrimental to Bitcoin, because it decreases stability. The most important thing that Bitcoin offers is a very stable core consensus protocol. This also aligns with what you're saying about why other blockchains are a complete disaster when it comes to money-ness, though I think that there aren't that many that actually even remotely try to be money.
The root issueThe root issue
The recent change in Core v30 to remove the datacarrier size limit in policy does run counter to this. It would have been better to not change it, and pressure of a group like Citrea should in my opinion never impact a single line of code in the reference client. If it were me, I'd just tell them no, but it isn't me, so we are where we are. If your fork succeeds and people end up left behind, then it would strengthen the perception that Bitcoin is fragile though; that's also not a good outcome.
Your assertion
Core 30 sends a message that inscriptions are an officially sanctioned use of Bitcoin
is fundamentally mistaken. No one - not Core, not Luke, not you, not me and most importantly, not even the majority - currently has the authority to sanction anything on Bitcoin, other than the blocks they mine. This is why stackers here call you a censor, because you're assuming that because some perceived majority, by you but not by me, believes that there is a democratic authority in Bitcoin consensus, but this is not what Bitcoin has ever been. Consensus rules have always been extremely permissive and this is why I fundamentally disagree with your proposal: you're proposing to change Bitcoin's design philosophy because there is no consensus on how to handle the perceived problem. And because there is no consensus, the implementation is moving the goalposts on what consensus is: where we've had over a decade of 95% activation threshold, you're redefining this in 2 ways, and I read your reactions for this to be because you already know that there is not going to be full consensus:
- You define a 55% threshold and you amended the standard for deployments to make that possible.
- You force the fork regardless of reaching consensus even when measured against the weakened definition of consensus in tandem.
This means that you propose to reduce consensus instead of building it. I can't help but feel that this can turn into authoritarian action by either a subset of current miner consensus, or by an undefined quantity of economic nodes, and that would imho be awful.
But it's temporary, so it's fine? I am of the opinion that it cannot be temporary if the duration is a whole year.
Temporary?Temporary?
BIP-110 is not a recurring softfork, so this comment is not applicable. It is active for one year, and then it expires, unless the Bitcoin community fails to come up with a suitable permanent solution, in which case we could opt to extend it.
If nothing is solved permanently after a year-long restriction then I expect that out of spite, Bitcoin will be flooded with spam by those that have been doing it in the past. We've seen some pressure already being directed towards Core from Ordinals people to not adopt filters. If however you want a suitable permanent solution to your perceived problem to occur, then you need to build consensus. You seem to recognize this too, but you're really doing the opposite by weakening deployment requirements, so your proposal is not enabling this: your proposal, if it would actually do the whole job and is activated, would de-escalate the perceived problem and it will become less urgent to fix it permanently.
You also cannot just "extend" it. It's another softfork to do so because that's how consensus changes work - after all, you've hardcoded the expiration - because every client/miner would need to once more confirm they are up for another year: it would need to be signaled for readiness once more, which costs time and effort of the entire network.
After a year however there could be multiple protocol enhancement proposals wanting activation and they will want inclusion. But the only way you're going to get inclusion is by introducing all the code for that enhancement into consensus to support their fork and integrating it into there. This means that whomever gatekeeps the activation of the followup year, also gatekeeps which proposals can go through. Activations are gatekept because a versionbit must declare a specific behavior (after bit lock-in which iirc we don't do anymore since moving away from ISM), so you cannot run variant activations under the same bit and we may see competing proposals rather than parallel activation.
The only scenario that I see where this will create urgency is if spam is gone, then there is no extension, spam comes back, and then there is increased urgency, but it will be of our own making. However, because there will be reduced pressure in the meantime, this means that the solution will have to be proposed under artificial pressure. Pressure is a massive risk, but I don't think it will go like that with your current proposal.
(1/2)
Awesome, thanks for the progress update and feedback! The feeling of stacking repos / commits is one of the coolest things, it's like building a canvas of knowledge and work slowly over years I definitely wanna help every new dev get addicted to that experience.
- Yeah code shortcut can be weird on different OS's, mine on mac will just stop working lol
- This is when you were sending a zap on the course or lesson through the UI? Can you tell me what browser you were using or if on mobile and how you paid? The zapper app integration has been a bit shaky, I'm gonna be doing my own full e2e implementation of zaps soon.
- Yeah I need to like record myself doing this in a lot more detail and on multiple OS's probably. Honestly this process is so confusing and easy to forget I had to watch a tutorial myself before recording that lesson 😂
I appreciate the feedback this is helpful AND encouraging to know people are going through it and finding value! This is just V1 of the starter, I will redo it and improve it at some point soon cause I know how important it is to have an empowering and fun intro for this stuff and these little blockers can be so devastating for that hah
- https://nostrapps.com/ can be used to get a sense of different types of content.
- https://stats.nostr.band/#daily_other_events shows non-note events (the column graph is the worst way to render this information :) )
Now in terms of brainstorming - it would be cool if I can run a (local / self-hosted) agent that helps me reduce and focus the information that I consume across youtube, nostr, social, sn.
I get easily distracted, I watch stupid zero-value videos, etc. If I could have a configurable agent that helps me get "less, but better" content and yet still make sure that it's engaging and entertaining, that would be really useful.
I believe is important to support territories that somehow are struggling, I pick the bottom 5 by revenue for this month (excluding #56 ~openagents because is a proprietary one)
Hope this ideas help spin up your territories a bit more!
Today, we earlier shared this post to introduce the SN/~AGORA to BitcoinTalk forum users.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5549394
We likewise welcome stackers feedback and advice. Here the SN more complete version: #1034121
WARNING: this has all the signs of being malware.
If you download this specter-desktop fork and run it, it will likely steal all of your funds.
No source has been provided that implements the alleged functionality.
The only changes the fork implements are to markdown files
The dmg file that the github fork links to contains malware: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/10590330f76ceac4b2a7dc661e1e4bf993eedabccd4f419ec594413213d9e666/behavior
Hope it helps: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5553448.0
eager to read more gripping tales
2/ What type of content (and how much) is currently on nostr (topics, formats - short text, long, images, videos, podcasts, etc). Is there a good site where I can get some stats for most popular relays?
There's an API from nostr.band (not affiliated) at https://stats.nostr.band/stats_api?method=stats that shows what kinds of content are being used and when. For example, daily.datasets.kind_0 tracks how many user profile events (kind 0) were found across various relays. The data looks like this:
{
"d": "2025-03-15",
"c": 36349
},3/ If you could get NOSTR-reader custom made just for you, what would be the interface? How would you like to tell the app what content you wanna see? No stupid answers, the more creative the better.
the client I personally want to use is what I'm building, an invite-only private community focused nostr client
Wow I thought someone would have caught me! Thanks everyone