the majority of non-competent distributed systems and game theory talkers who get all the airtime on this protocol don't actually understand either game theory or distributed systems.
here's some hard fax:
fully anonymized, private direct messages can only be coordinated over an anonymising proxy, with ephemeral messages, and thus have a huge problem with asynchrony and there is basically ZERO consistency to the data on the network.
every security and privacy (a form of security policy) system has tradeoffs. the great holy grail of these uneducated, uncreative folk who say nostr can't do secure private messaging, is a type of privacy protection that is essentially a form of deliberate amnesia with a zero time window.
the biggest disagreement i have with this idiotic view of what must be in place for nostr to implement this, is this:
nostr's middleman, rendezvous architecture is designed for asynchronous messaging. but it can also do synchronous messaging through rendezvous, and solves the NAT routing problem that persists for anyone wishing to do p2p protocols from their home connection.
nostr solves that problem.
now go back to all these supposedly "private" protocols.
NAME ONE THAT DOESN"T INVOLVE THEM CACHING YOUR MESSAGES ON THEIR SERVERS!
not one of them. simplex, signal, matrix, telegram, whatsapp. all of them basically have relays in them.
so, what was that you were saying?
are you saying i can trust Signal Inc. more than i can trust my friend in germany?
