I'm not proposing anything for nostr. The only thing for nostr is a fork.
In the Farcaster case, the core identity (the FID) doesn't change. If you lose the highest thing you can possibly lose (your main key, as it were) and then your trusted friends vouch for a new main key, once done that takes control of your FID (as per the smart contract) and you're back on the SAME identity. So you have an old-to-new bridge in the form of the blockchain. nostr has no such bridge, and can never have one.
You don't need a chain, but you do need some help from somewhere and that help does not and cannot exist in nostr unless you fork it.
Login to reply
Replies (1)
You've identified my complaint: the smart contract at the root of the protocol. I should say off the bat, too, that I developed software for Farcaster a couple years ago. I'm not a stranger to it. Let the fact that I moved from it to nostr speak for itself.
Different sets ofnpubs should be able to decide to adhere to different concepts of trust without the protocol giving a shit what they do.
If _my_ trust network wants "npub's mom + wife have the say over npub's new nsec", then the way _we_ use the protocol should allow for that. If another group of people want to use another system, they should go ahead and I wish them luck. I'd prefer an open protocol that doesn't enforce opinions about which trust systems are prescribed.
If I understand you correctly, you're implicitly saying "the smart contract is the ultimate source of truth" and I'm simply not a fan of that idea. I prefer blockchains be used for timestamping/double-spend and not as the "global state", because I don't believe "global state" is a coherent concept (and I think it's a road to hell, honestly).