> To me, that indicates that we're letting fiat clown world win That’s exactly what I was getting at. Take Bitcoin Core (or any other full node implementation). Its interface looks straight out of Windows 95. Every screen is confusing for newcomers. The built-in wallet is a joke. You need to run an Electrum server on top just to have proper indexing, and a separate blockchain explorer to see what’s going on. When will this ever be improved for the average user? Probably never. It’s been 17 years. Instead, developers are paid millions to ship controversial changes that introduce new attack surfaces. The whole thing is backwards. The result: people opt out for custodial services and wrappers. The point is simple: if your monetary protocol requires the user to understand how the tech works just to use it, it’s not money yet. And the same logic applies to Nostr imo.

Replies (1)

Not bad points, but feels far afield.. this conversation started off with my worry that Primal is harming decentralization, while other clients that are nearly identical to use (like Damus) are not guilt of this. And your response was "but look at the layouts of these screens - one is basically unusable". I don't see the connection between technically buried config options in Core which are difficult for a non-technical person to figure out and meaningfully change their mempool and the potentially the protocol itself, and the minor differences in layout and element sizes between nostr clients. Your argument really loses the thread because Primal ("the pretty one") is the one that has the sneaky, hidden centralizing features that the average non-technical user doesn't understand - the corollary to Core developers being paid to introduce attack surfaces in your argument.