Outside of npub portability, again, it seems like you're just describing Mastodon. Federation means different instances can indeed share information, and I guess there is technically a means of user migration between instances, even if it isn't frequently used... But in what fiatjaf is describing, you wouldn't be moving your npub at all anyway! "Just connect to these three or four servers" just seems to defeat the entire purpose of a decentralized social network. And besides that, the issue is that it vastly increased the legal liability on relay operators, who now 100% have to operate as content moderators.

Replies (4)

Strictly speaking, there's no such thing as "migrating" an npub, it was never tied to any one place to begin with. Once an event is signed, it objectively exists. In fact, your events already exist on relays all over the world, even ones you never explicitly published to. (This very reply of yours is already on a relay I run at home.) That’s what I see as the biggest difference between nostr and mastodon. Decentralization isn’t about how many relays you use. You connected to 14 relays, but I’d guess you don’t have absolute control over any of them. I only use five, but I control two of them. So who’s more censorship-resistant? Any service that exposes data publicly carries some legal risk, that’s a general truth, not specific to this idea. And no one’s saying every relay needs to moderate content. Public relays and curated relays can coexist.
Or maybe self-signed individual json events are enough. Trying to create a quantum superposition of yes global state + no global state is goofballs, has always been. This is a much better idea.