Neither NIPs or NostrHub are a good solution to the problem that Nostr specifications are a disorganized mess. Reinventing the wheel every time in different ways is harmful to the development of the protocol. This has already been solved by basically every other protocol by making a standards body, but somehow we have failed to do this on Nostr. One should also exist on Nostr, ideally with the following properties: - It should be open for anyone to participate, but with some commitments. - Members should in general be required to participate on a lot of topics, to prevent drive-by slop. - Maybe a small membership fee to cover the hosting of the infrastructure and to again prevent drive-by slop. - A process for discussing and creating standards should exist, that is not too restrictive but does offer some resistance. - There should be bylaws to prevent bad-faith actors and to ensure the main goals do not get derailed. Or maybe something like the C2SP.

Replies (6)

It’s very different from NIPs. For one, lexicons have no pretense that there is or will be interoperability. They assume that there isn’t, in fact. But lexicons do assume that at least one developer is using them (it’s under their namespace). NIPs are the opposite. They assume interoperability, but in reality zero apps are using them. There is only hell if we impose it upon ourselves. Basically, it’s all about expectations and ownership. Nostr does both terribly.
Also, the app developer should be the one that owns the lexicon functionality. AtProto has that right. They are the ones that want to use the lexicon. So let them support it for their users. Meanwhile, the expectation of NIP functionality is forced onto relays. Insane because Nostr relays were supposed to be dumb.
I hate all these ideas because the people who are authorized to write the standards will inevitably be retarded. Maybe if it was 20 years ago, but now? People don't have functional brains anymore.