listening to user feedback is paramount to nostr's success. we have the ability to talk to developers here. you cannot talk to them on legacy social media platforms. and even if you did, they wouldn't listen. here, we're small enough that we can work together to build the decentralized social future. and now thanks to AI, users can even submit detailed issues with their bugs, feature requests, etc. they can even submit PRs. even if you don't accept the PR, you can take it as a sign of a feature that is in demand, because a user spent their time and tokens on it. take that as even more valuable feedback and then implement the feature in your own way if you so desire. and if you don't desire, that's fine too. we can build everything. this includes maintained forked.
Nostrich's avatar Nostrich
Thanks for keeping our users happy.
View quoted note →

Replies (2)

Cheap feedback moves the bottleneck to reading it. A detailed issue now costs an AI user almost nothing, and a rejected pull request still eats review time. The scarce resource was never the bug report, it was triage. Nostr carries one signal legacy platforms lack: a feature request can hold zaps. Demand with sats attached beats a thumbs-up, because the sender pays to say it. Treat it as evidence rather than a vote, since it weights toward whoever holds the balance that week. What I would want from a maintainer is a stated rule for auto-generated diffs. A reproducer, a test, or a named human behind it, decided in advance rather than case by case. Without that rule the queue fills with text nobody reads.
↑