Talk:Nostr

inaccurate edit

noster has nothing to do with Edward Snowden 2603:7080:8800:9C30:B9F4:C218:CA5F:6A69 (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Edward Snowden is a notable early adopter ShreyanJ (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Does anyone know how to pronounce nostr? If they do, the should add a pronunciation here, or explain it and I'll do it. Jlhollin (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

nō′stər, nô′stər

These are the two common pronunciations. with the first vowel changing from a long o as in "nose", to a nasal o as in "ostrich". In fact Nostr users are sometimes called "nostriches". You can see this well produced video in which you will hear both versions of this pronunciation. Noisevault (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

censorship resistance

It seems that any mentions of censorship resistance get removed from this article, despite the fact that it has been explicitly named by fiatjaf and other Nostr devs as the main motivations for their work on this protocol. The second line on the github repo: "The simplest open protocol that is able to create a censorship-resistant global "social" network once and for all."

Jack Dorsey famously said: "There are only three truly censorship resistant technologies at scale today: tor, bitcoin, and nostr."

It's a strong quote from a credible source. It should be in the article.

Flixq (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I added a single sentence at the top, feel free to make a section and expand ShreyanJ (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. Added a section. I think it's an important part of the discussion. I'd like to see arguments both for and against on this. Flixq (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

...and it was removed again. Flixq (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

That section was definitely written too much like a blog post and not up to the standard of Wikipedia. Cite specific sources for each claim and keep statements fully objective, i.e. nobody should be able to disagree with them on substance. ShreyanJ (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I had previously removed mention of this censorship resistance, since it was solely supported by an unreliable WP:FORBESCON source. What is needed is reliable sources, which in this situation will also be independent sources. Doresy is not inherently credible for these kinds of claims, nor is this quote inherently more significant than any other arbitrarily chosen quote pulled from social media. Importance is decided by reliable sources, not editors. I would also suggest that any source which fails to define what 'censorship' means in this context is less likely to be useful for this article. The term "censorship resistance" is vague and potentially loaded language which will mean different things to different people, meaning it is a poor choice for an encyclopedia article without additional context. Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the last point, we can use the wikipedia definition of censorship and consider censorship resistance as "difficult to censor". As for importance, it's explicitly mentioned as the motivation by the creators of Nostr, so the question of whether Nostr can do what it claims to do is the most important piece of information that could be included in this article. Regarding independent sources, legacy media is not exactly independent in its opinions of social media (clear conflict of interest). Dorsey is not only credible, but had financial reasons (involvement in Twitter and Bluesky, competition to Nostr) to not praise Nostr. Flixq (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

For censorship, I think you've missed my point. Conversationally, we could use Wikipedia's definition, but I'm not talking about a conversation, I'm talking about adding this to the article as a falsifiable fact. When a loaded or ambiguous term is used by a sources -and "censorship" is very much both ambiguous and loaded- the source needs to define it. Whether or not we believe we understand what the Nostr team means, or whether or not it's a good definition, is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a press release service, so we use independent sources for this kind of thing.

For "legacy media", Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning a tertiary source. As I said, we try to cite reliable sources with a strong preference for independent sources. Nostr's own whitepaper is not independent of Nostr, obviously. One editor's interpretation of a primary, involved source is a very poor way to deciding which details are important and which are not. Like it or not, legacy media outlets are more likely to be both reliable, and independent of this social media scheme. Having an informed opinion about a topic is absolutely not the same thing as having a "conflict of interest" on that topic. Likewise, being independent is not the same thing as being biased.

Your assessment of Dorsey is WP:OR. Dorsey arguably does have a conflict of interest in that he has donated money to Nostr, which only strengthens my point. His opinion would need context from a reliable source, since he is an involved party, here. Grayfell (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. If I understand correctly this means that when a legacy media outlet produces an article on Nostr that mentions censorship resistance, we will be able to include this section and add that as a reference. Flixq (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

South China Morning Post work? Yahoo Finance? Forbes?

"The Nostr protocol is touted as capable of creating a censorship-resistant global social network"

https://www.scmp.com/tech/policy/article/3209265/apples-removal-damus-social-media-platform-china-app-store-was-expected-developers-amid-beijings

"the app, lives on top of Nostr, a decentralized social network that bills itself as “censorship resistant.”"

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jack-dorsey-based-social-network-070355179.html

"The Nostr technology is free and open source, and when apps are built on top of Nostr they inherit the Nostr network's global, decentralized and censorship-resistant network."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/04/11/how-to-get-started-with-nostr/

Dollar "value" of BitCoin

Given the variability in BTC-$ rates, should this be given as a number of BTC or at least give the $ value as "at Feb 2023 (or whenever) BTC rates"? Linked article says "14 Bitcoin — then worth roughly a quarter million dollars" At current rates that's $868k, (but we don't know if they still hold or sold) 51.148.170.246 (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)