• [Edit] I tried to get the slides and an audio file, from Constant’s talk at NostRiga, about 8 months ago
• 1.
  • Nostr’s adoption thesis
  • The less you define, the more you imply
  • by Wouter Constant
  • 2.
    • Dutch Bitcoiner
    • AntiHashedPodcast
    • Writing Book about nostr
  • 3.
    • What this presentation about
    • A protocols design includes initself a thesis
    • on protocol adoption, due to underlying assumptions
  • 4.
    • Examples
    • Governments/Academic: Pubhubs (Matrix)
    • Bussiness: Bluesky
    • Foss: Nostr
  • 5.
    • What constitutes minimal viability?
    • Pubhubs (Matrix): make is “safe” for user
    • Bluesky: liability and monetization
    • Foss: Simpel for developer
  • 6.
    • The Point of Nostr
    • Capture network effects through interoperability
  • 7.
  • Three assumptions
    • The direction is workable
    • Method is workable
    • Motivation and means are sufficient
  • 8.
  • Assumption 1
    • The asymmetric cryptography paradigm is a good idea
  • 9.
    • Nostr is a exponent of the key-pair paradigm.
    • And Basicly just that.
  • 10.
    • Keys suck
    • Protect a secret that you are supposed use all the time.
  • 11.
  • Assumption two
    • The unaddressed things will be figured out within a ‘meta-design consensus’
  • 12.
    • Nostr’s base protocol is not minimally viable for anything, except own development.
  • 13.
    • Complexity leads to capture;
    • i.e. free and open in the name,
    • controlled in pratice
  • 14.
  • Meta-design consensus
    • Buildings things ‘note centric’ mantains interoperability.
  • 15.
  • Assumption three
    • the nightmare is scary;
    • the cream is appealing.
  • 16.
    • Get it minimally viable,
    • for whatever target,
    • such that it is not a waste of time.
  • 17.
  • Summarize
    • We are in a nightmare.
    • Assume key/signature are the way out.
    • Assume we can Maintain an open stardand while manifesting the dream.
    • Assume we are motivated enought to bootstrap this to adulthood.
  • 18.
    • We want this,
    • we can do this,
    • because we have to.
  • Thank you for contribuiting

§[Edit] I tried to get the slides and an audio file, from Constant’s talk at NostRiga, about 8 months ago

§1.

§Nostr’s adoption thesis

§The less you define, the more you imply

§by Wouter Constant

§2.

§Dutch Bitcoiner

§AntiHashedPodcast

§Writing Book about nostr

00:40

§3.

§What this presentation about

§A protocols design includes initself a thesis

§on protocol adoption, due to underlying assumptions

1:17

§4.

§Examples

§Governments/Academic: Pubhubs (Matrix)

§Bussiness: Bluesky

§Foss: Nostr

1:58

§5.

§What constitutes minimal viability?

§Pubhubs (Matrix): make is “safe” for user

§Bluesky: liability and monetization

§Foss: Simpel for developer

4:03

§6.

§The Point of Nostr

§Capture network effects through interoperability

4:43

§7.

§Three assumptions

§The direction is workable

§Method is workable

§Motivation and means are sufficient

5:27

§8.

§Assumption 1

§The asymmetric cryptography paradigm is a good idea

6:16

§9.

§Nostr is a exponent of the key-pair paradigm.

§And Basicly just that.

6.52

§10.

§Keys suck

§Protect a secret that you are supposed use all the time.

7:37

§11.

§Assumption two

§The unaddressed things will be figured out within a ‘meta-design consensus’

8:11

§12.

§Nostr’s base protocol is not minimally viable for anything, except own development.

8:25

§13.

§Complexity leads to capture;

§i.e. free and open in the name,

§controlled in pratice

9:54

§14.

§Meta-design consensus

§Buildings things ‘note centric’ mantains interoperability.

11:51

§15.

§Assumption three

§the nightmare is scary;

§the cream is appealing.

12:41

§16.

§Get it minimally viable,

§for whatever target,

§such that it is not a waste of time.

13:23

§17.

§Summarize

§We are in a nightmare.

§Assume key/signature are the way out.

§Assume we can Maintain an open stardand while manifesting the dream.

§Assume we are motivated enought to bootstrap this to adulthood.

14:01

§18.

§We want this,

§we can do this,

§because we have to.

14:12

§Thank you for contribuiting

[Edit] Note for audio presentation