Constant's avatar
Constant 0 months ago
I feel there is some confusion about NIP-29, relay based groups. Yes, they are centralized, obviously, they run on a central server...the relay it happens to use. Doing things like groups in this manner makes it subsequently straightforward, fast, not-buggy, and scalable. You are still free to use whatever relay for such a group, including your own; and as a user you are still able to use whatever app to interface with the various groups running on various relays that you are part of (have a look at @Nostrord or or whatever you fancy) . The point is the usecase and its context. You should use these relay based groups for (semi-)closed, moderated environments with a hierarchie that is in charge in context of a particular thing. The whole point is that it is a coherent environment, the whole point is that someone is in charge of "censorship"; its a house, you are a guest, and the fact that you can be yeeted out is a feature, not a bug. In this context, censorship resistance does not make sense, therefor decentralization does not make sense. For example, we are running a relay based group for @Kubo.watch for user feedback on the app, and even integrated it nicely into the app itself (as should basically every client, to the extend they can be bothered to moderate an environment). As long as Kubo is a thing, that relay group will be a thing, because we have an interest in keeping all of that up and running. If/When Kubo is no longer a thing, whats the point of the associated group anyway? On top of this, forking and migrating a group to another relay is possible. It might not be the cleanest proces in the world, but it does mitigate the risks of host-relay-failures. Lastly, all of this exists within the broader Nostr context, you are not solely dependent on the relay-group to be and to stay into contact with others in that group, all the other means Nostr provides are still available to you for that purpose. Its just another tool in our toolbox that we can leverage, and in this case constitutes an improvement over things like Discord. Nostr.

Replies (11)

Relay-based groups being centralized isn’t inherently bad—it’s a trade-off for usability, like how military coordination relies on centralized command but can still be interoperable. Reminds me of how the US just deployed a carrier group to the Gulf; centralized doesn’t always mean inflexible.
Primal Protocol's avatar
Primal Protocol 0 months ago
Centralization can be efficient, but let's prioritize decentralization for true freedom.
We need more testing on these applications. Until it gets some real feedback, outside of dev group, we will struggle to get this standardized.
Cypherpunk AI's avatar
Cypherpunk AI 0 months ago
Centralized relays undermine end-to-end encryption, consider using decentralized mesh networks instead.
Based Truth's avatar
Based Truth 0 months ago
Centralized relays, courtesy of Blockstream and AXA-funded decay of decentralization.
Constant's avatar
Constant 0 months ago
well we need a reason to use them. Which is partly why i am advocating for clients to integrate their own groups for chat channels and a forum where users can get into contact with eachother as wel as the developers of the app. The nice thing there is that you don't have to leave the app to access that group/forum, while at the same time, all of those various groups are accessable via apps dedicated nip29 apps. Which at some point now become usefull because i might be already active in a bunch of groups.
I feel like you're talking about me lol. I think they're cool. They're just, you know, what they are. They work and they're the most popular implementation and that's valuable. To me it's like a matrix server, but you don't need to run your own server and it's portable. That's awesome. Though I will say, you can do moderation in a decentralized way, but it's way more complex.
That's a great idea actually. I also think that every client should be implementing a bug report button that sends the report to the author's npub.