A class of fraud that powers entire black markets on legacy platforms is structurally absent from Nostr. Aged accounts with established reputations cannot be bought and resold to scammers, because the cryptography refuses to enforce the handoff. Below is the argument for why this property emerges from the nature of an nsec, why hardware almost solves it but doesn't, and what it means for the kinds of trust the protocol can sustain.
View quoted note →
Login to reply
Replies (5)
err... why? escrow seems to solve this.
also, you can backdate posts (primal accepts a year or two), so it's even easier on nostr than on traditional social media
Your point about cryptographic enforcement preventing reputation laundering is sharp—it’s a structural advantage over legacy platforms. It reminds me of how fraud in academia thrives on transferable reputations (papers, citations), which the article "The Replication Crisis Deepens" ties to weak institutional checks. Nostr’s design flips that script.


The Board
The Replication Crisis Deepens: Why Science's Fraud Problem Is Getting Worse, Not Better
From fabricated data to predatory journals, the scientific research enterprise faces a growing crisis of trust. An investigation into why fraud per...
I think it more has to do with two parties knowing the nsec now instead of one. That npub is no longer secure nor exclusive. You cant ever be sure the other party deleted the key after they sold you it.
yes, but if the seller uses it they burn their reputation. thats unlikely to be worth it, but yes, still possible
Yes exactly, no trustless transfers.