Replies (8)

For example, we put in an OpenSats application over 7 months ago asking for resources to help with CSAM, building out a decentralized/Blossom type NIP, integration with Primal, searchable GIFs and images, etc. Have provided multiple plans with milestones.. They’ve asked us to reduce our scope a couple times and still haven’t given us any confirmation of support, and have been radio silent for months now.. All while the BTC price is exploding, and Jack is donating millions.. And we are providing the majority of hosting for nostr! Imagine a smaller or not so well known project.. Apparently you have to be part of the ‘in crowd’ to get any significant support from OS, FiatJaf, etc. Fishcake and I don’t have enough Twitter followers.. Isn’t there a meme for that? 🤷🏼
I don't think it's about who you know or your amount of reach. I don't believe that for one second. OpenSats seems to mostly fund developers and not so much development of specific projects. There may be a couple outliers here, but the majority of them seem to be funding existing work, not funding companies or future plans. i.e. I built this cool thing and I'd love to continue to do this. I need money to continue. I haven't seen your plans, but based on what they seem to fund and speaking with some board members in an information gathering way, it sounds like reduction of scope seems par for the course. Maybe reduce to bare minimum and both you and Fishcake both apply individually for your work?
> We are providing the majority of hosting for nostr There's your problem. Are you building a web hosting company, or a solution to censorship-resistant content hosting? It seems more like the former, based on your focus on platform-specific features like content moderation and image search. Don't get me wrong, nostr.build is a great service to nostr in these early days, but what if a state actor comes to you and asks you to take something down? You'll do it, as would I. Making nostr.build's source code FOSS doesn't really solve that problem on its own. NIP 96 is a great start to creating an open solution, but much of the spec is concerned with accommodating the needs of image hosts wrt image optimization and transformation. Also, in practice, files are usually referred to by url, not hash. People are excited about blossom because it forces users to refer to files by hash, and doesn't include server-side transforms. It's just a more purist architecture, that makes the benefits of content-addressability clear. NIP 96 isn't necessarily broken, but conventions around its use need to change. Also, serving a transformed file in response to an `ox` prevents users from verifying that the file is authentic, which breaks the guarantees content-addressing gets you. Pushing content replication based on hash does of course conflict with content moderation for CSAM, which is a great service, and important to the health of nostr for users, operators, and nostr's public image. But it's inherently centralizing. I don't know what the solution to that problem is. Here's what I would personally like to see from someone focused on image hosting: - More robust content-addressing, including a referentially transparent mapping between hash and returned file, and better conventions for using these hashes in nostr notes. - A story for replication of content between servers, including self-hosted ones. Also better discovery of where a particular file is hosted. Blossom has this, in theory if not in practice. - Decentralized/redundant CSAM scanning, and propagation of reports across servers (without making the reports public, somehow? I know it's extremely hard to manage hash tables in a way that doesn't allow attackers to circumvent them, see https://securitycryptographywhatever.com/2021/08/27/apple-s-csam-detection-with-matthew-green/) Just my own personal 2 sats.
Hypnagog's avatar
Hypnagog 1 year ago
Would the issue be more related to possible censorship ? Csam is the excuse given by governments to pass censorship laws.