npub1hy…wtqnx

Public Key

npub1hyxredcavc6ruqgsf4wf4hmakpwnvefmzaspl7dja6a2sxlx0q3sxwtqnx

Profile Code

nprofile1qqstjrpukuwkvdp7qygy6hy6ma7mqhfkv5a3wcqllxewaw4gr0n8sgcpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqgdwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkcqgkwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhrq7rrdpshgtnrdakszrmhwden5te0dehhxarj9ekk7mgpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3vamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwdehhxarj9e3xzmnyrqch9h

Publishing to

Author Public Key

npub1hyxredcavc6ruqgsf4wf4hmakpwnvefmzaspl7dja6a2sxlx0q3sxwtqnx

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-01-19 14:51:32 UTC

- reply

>The dual-function of chat + browser with nostr login support is a vision you can only understand by seeing it for yourself.
Or just by living in Asia.

2026-01-18 08:30:12 UTC

- reply

>Big tech has no moat.
Pretty sure Nvidia has no issues with this option.

2026-01-18 04:56:08 UTC

- reply

Like if a 6s clip goes viral and gets 100k views that's say 2 or 3 TB served, and in a sort period of time. (Proving transcoding of proven video is another issue I'm curious how you'd tackle). My guess is this media.divine.video is going to be pretty heavily subsidised for a while, and that's cool, but it would be good to see transparent costs and projections for the infra behind that.

2026-01-18 02:33:54 UTC

- reply

But what about the cloud costs for the CDN, storage, etc.? The idea is each user covers their own costs?
And relay costs too, but to a much smaller degree.
Or is the idea to bootstrap growth by offering subsidies options to start?

2026-01-17 14:05:28 UTC

- reply

I meant costs for all the media serving and storage, and cloud infra in general.
I agree with you the proving part is a bit wobbly in terms of messaging, but not so much for the fact the app was heavily vibed. More because the max-proof certification relies absolutely on Apple and Google's servers. You could easily call that an advertisement for the benefits of centralisation.
Normally that's fine, centralisation does have benefits, and when apps are honest about it then good.
What irks me is this screw you apple/thank you apple love-hate thing.

2026-01-17 12:15:29 UTC

- reply

That is fair. The bigger question I think is how much is this going to cost users? Since they'll be shouldering the infra costs at the end of the day.

2026-01-14 10:23:04 UTC

- reply

It certainly is an echo chamber here.
Who needs users when you've got ~*TeCHnOloGy*~

2026-01-12 17:31:36 UTC

- reply

People have been trying it out, the problem is churn. People come, they think "oh dear" and they leave. A ridiculously high churn rate just means the more than come the more that leave.

2026-01-11 07:50:30 UTC

- reply

That's one word for every daily active user on nostr.

2026-01-09 07:58:47 UTC

- reply

noster, nostra, nostrum would all be good.
but nostr feels like cheeky startup hide the vowel games, circa 1999

2026-01-08 16:41:30 UTC

- reply

There are just so few people here, that's what it boils down to.
If your entire job was reposting content and getting sneaky zaps in this way you'd still not even be earning minimum wage. Not even close.

2026-01-08 12:23:29 UTC

- reply

He's got significant proven oil reserves of his own.

2026-01-08 12:11:35 UTC

- reply

Also nostr is not such a great name for mass branding. It sounds stuck in the time of "look at me I'm so cool with my missing penultimate vowel", like Flickr or Tumblr.
Plus half the users pronounce it one way and the other half another.

2026-01-08 08:30:32 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin is for everyone. Terms and conditions apply.

2026-01-07 19:30:12 UTC

- reply

The problem for me is the scale of the subsidies. As far as I can tell, it's over $1m per month going in, perhaps well over. And for a user based with under 10k daily actives (going by npub.world). That's $100 per daily active per month, or thereabouts.
If it was a little bit of help here and there then I'd be fine with it, but this is something else entirely, these are Saudi Arabia ratios.
I think small businesses running clients for profit is fine and good, just as it's fine and good to have small businesses running bakeries and bars. One good thing about nostr is that it potentially enables small businesses to take part in an industry previously reserved for corporations. But like any small business they still have to function as *actual business* for the whole thing to work. That hasn't been proven out.

2026-01-07 19:08:31 UTC

- reply

You could argue that I suppose, but then who is doing the subsidising? For a real town square it's still the townspeople paying, it's still their tax contributions. For nostr the current user base is not covering any significant part of the costs of providing what it is consuming, in any way, roundabout or direct. The whole thing is run on a Deus ex machina plot device.
If you're not paying for your use then you are the product, always and forever. At the moment most people on nostr are not paying for their use and therefore ARE the product. The only question is to whom are they selling themselves.
The answer is they are selling themselves to a relatively small group of people looking to make a certain mark on the world, to leave a certain legacy. If enough in this small group give up this quest (this can be a mercurial sphere) then they will be left with nobody to sell themselves to.

2026-01-07 13:13:30 UTC

- reply

maybe the square itself, but you certainly want the cafes, bars and bakeries in that square to be real businesses, earning enough from sales to pay their staff, pay the rent, and eek out a small profit.
a town square where every cafe, bar and bakery is free of charge for everyone and being subsidised to the tune of millions by certain benevolent groups sounds a little not-quite-right no?

2026-01-07 12:31:37 UTC

- reply

what we need is stuff that people will pay for.
these high quality social media clients all run at a loss (sans grants or VC runway)
the weird stuff also runs at a loss.
we need stuff that can enough people will pay enough money to use to cover the salaries of a dev team and maybe also return a small profit to blow on the christmas party

2025-11-30 10:27:23 UTC

- reply

Important to note thought that this is a major pivot, with all that major pivoting entails.
This is a case of "as it turns out toothbrushes are useful to clean bathtub grout". Which can be true, but still, it's important to stay aware that toothbrushes were designed to brush your teeth with.

2025-11-18 10:56:11 UTC

- reply

The attacker could work out the private key from the public key of any Bitcoin address whose public key has been revealed on the chain. Think about that. (Again this is nothing to do with SHA256).
Dormant whale wallets, especially from early years, all immediately drained.
Following that (and assuming this all happens before any post-quantum resistance has had the chance to propagate) the % of total Bitcoin supply that would be drained by the attackers would likely be around 30%. (The attack team can drain the exposed wallets before the community can even migrate a small fraction, this is all very well prepared. The theft of this pool is almost guaranteed once a capable quantum computer is revealed.)
You now have some random team, in some lab somewhere in Asia, in control of 30% of the supply of Bitcoin.
Exchanges, wallets, and institutions would likely halt all Bitcoin transactions and withdrawals to assess the damage and prevent further theft, effectively paralysing the network.
Short-range attacks (funds being moved exposing their wallets) means nobody who's wallet is not exposed moves anything either.
The list goes on. GHash.io this absolutely is not.

2025-11-18 09:36:27 UTC

- reply

for secp256k1 it's all about timing. if a shor's attack happens quickly enough, that's also the end of the story.
but don't count out grover's and sha256 either, quadratic speedup is a real thing, it's all about creative attacks and the speed of the quantum machine.

2025-11-18 09:33:16 UTC

- reply

as always, snark but no argument about why quantum isn't a existential threat. because there is no argument.

2025-11-18 08:16:14 UTC

- reply

Yeah, no. One single unexpected quantum computing breakthrough can end all of Bitcoin. Don't think hanging the future of the world's money on a currency that can be ended by a single press release is a good idea.

2025-11-14 04:01:28 UTC

- reply

It wouldn't work. You in theory ditch secp256k and start over with Crystals or similar (hello 2.5kb signatures). But on Nostr it makes no sense to hard fork and just change the key type, since there are other unresolved technical problems, you'd want to kill as many birds with one stone as you can.
It'd basically be an entirely new protocol. This one written off.
The problem is that it has to be done. I mean it would be quite a feat of engineering if within 3 years there was a quantum computer that can crack secp256k via shor's, in the 2k-6k logical qbit range. But the thing is it's entirely possible, given how AI is supercharging error correction and new advances in qbit types and noise reduction. So if being serious about security you have to assume it will happen in 5 years, and you definitely have to assume it will happen in 10.
Signal started their fix a couple years ago and are basically done, so things like White Noise can be reworked to remove nostr (as we know it now) as the transport layer. But for nostr itself there is zero scope for migration, it's the end of the line.

2025-11-13 20:20:38 UTC

- reply

Nostr still requires a hard fork though, because of quantum resistance. As it stands now scep256k1 is always the weakest link in the chain, and scep256k1 cannot be a foundation for anything in 2025..

2025-11-08 00:21:18 UTC

- reply

Nah. All money is human imagination. All of it. That goes for fiat the same as it goes for bitcoin, as it goes for monero, as it goes for anything. It's all a shared delusion, the moment humans stop agreeing that it has value then it has no value.
Compare that to a coconut. The value of a coconut does not depend on us all agreeing with each other that it has value.

2025-11-07 11:12:24 UTC

- reply

I'm just pointing out the insanely obvious. Look at USDT transaction volume on TRON, it's like $25 billion a day. A DAY! And these are mostly paying for stuff transactions, not people playing the currency markets.
There's just no denying that stablecoins have won the MoE race. Other things like Zcash or whatever will always have their niche and that's fine. But these niches are tiny little sideshows in comparison.

2025-11-07 07:45:01 UTC

- reply

Monero, camero.
Stablecoins have won, this game is over.

2025-11-06 23:13:17 UTC

- reply

I'm not here for bitcoin zaps. Or rather for my share of the teensy weensy $1,000 worth of zaps that get sent around Nostr every day, which is supposedly the largest online Bitcoin circular economy in the world.
I'm here for the relay tech, which, unlike the Bitcoin zaps, is very promising.

2025-11-06 19:33:22 UTC

- reply

Wrong currency. Bitcoin is a store of value. It's digital gold. Very good digital gold mind you, but the Medium of Exchange race is long lost.
Many people here, they talk about circular this and that, but inside they hate so much to part with their digital gold that even when making small zaps they feel little pangs of loss and regret. The worry that they might not get it zapped back reaches OCD level. That's where we are today.
Nostr needs USDT zaps. Native taproot USDT zaps over lightning. It's possible to care about Nostr more than Bitcoin, and if that's you then you have to see this.

2025-11-05 15:40:04 UTC

- reply

We'll only know what will emerge when the subsidies end and clients as a group have to face economic reality. It's economic reality that forces clients to looks for selling points, and a curated (or, gasp, moderated) experience is one such selling point. This is a time of economic un-reality for nostr, I'm not sure much can be read into it.

2025-11-05 13:10:55 UTC

- reply

That fixed it. Sad thing is that it's not all that obvious, there is a high degree of irrational entitlement here when it comes to *~freedom~*.

2025-11-05 12:57:27 UTC

- reply

real nostr clients can ban you — from their real nostr client.

2025-11-05 12:55:58 UTC

- reply

Of course it is for Primal to set. You get to decide what clients to use. You don't have some absurd and fantastical right to decide on behalf of client devs what defaults their clients can or cannot implement.

2025-11-05 12:51:40 UTC

- reply

no, users decide what clients to use. client are free to decide what they want about who is who.

2025-11-02 15:21:52 UTC

- reply

https://github.com/CollaboraOnline/online We use this and it's fine. It's LibreOffice with their own real-time collaboration tooling on top, open source. They contribute a lot back to LibreOffice.

2025-11-01 16:30:40 UTC

- reply

That's fair.

2025-11-01 14:38:14 UTC

- reply

The design of anything on nostr should allow for a high percentage of normies losing or exposing their nsecs, and this makes all this Encryption A vs Encryption B stuff moot.

2025-11-01 11:48:35 UTC

- reply

Agree those are potential fixes for NIP17 DMs, albeit they rely on all the things you mentioned. How many people are going to exclusively use auth-enabled relays with IP access alerts? And those alerts could also work backwards and inform the attacker of the true holder's IP, which needs to be accounted for. I mean it's all doable but these dumb relays sure are getting pretty smart.

2025-11-01 07:48:43 UTC

- reply

An example of a protocol (and not client) concern is that if someone has your nsec you generally have no way of knowing. I could have your nsec right now, I could be reading your DMs (unless MLS), and I could continue to do for the next months or years, you'd have no real way of knowing I'm doing this unless I slip up and publish something with your nsec and you see that (which, if I was using a special client, would be unlikely) or some elaborate relay sting.
This sucks because the moment you suspect your nsec mave have been exposed, even if just a small chance, you then have to assume it has been and start on a new one, since there's no way to check the history as you can do with other platforms.
The more Nostr moves to Web of Trust the more it benefits the attacker (the knower of the exposed nsec) to just wait and let you build trust on your compromised account, over months or years, because that trust will be useful to cash out as some point in future.

2025-10-29 15:45:23 UTC

- reply

Nostr cannot be that protocol without a hard fork.
I've long thought the best way to mitigate the damage from losing an nsec, be it losing in the sense of exposing or just plain old losing the thing, is to make that loss less of a big deal. Because if normies ever adopt nostr they will lose their nsecs right and left. This means pushing nostr to more disposable use cases.
Going down this trust route does the opposite. It increases the price for losing your nsec, and it increases it by an astronomical amount. If after months or years of trust-building you lose your nsec you’ll be forced to realise that all that trust was never in you: it was always in your nsec. You the human being have accumulated nothing. Now you have to start from zero, an incredibly demotivating proposition. Would you have the energy? Worse still, if your nsec was exposed then whoever has access to it can abuse all that trust for as long as there is still juice in the orange. So from disposable nsecs we move to priceless nsecs or even sacred nsecs. It’s just not viable. If nostr has any hope of expanding outside this small and nerdy group the protocol will have to account for mass loss of nsecs.
Also few here can imagine what nostr would be like if there was a black market for stolen nsecs. But if nostr ever does get bigger and become the protocol of trust in the way you describe then there would emerge such a market, including for nsecs that are exposed but that the original nsec holder has no idea are exposed. For a sufficiently motivated and malicious group, this would be fish in a barrel.
The common response to this is “we’ll just fix signers” (and then nobody will ever lose their nsec ever so problem solved?) but the truth is that key management on nostr is a deeply fundamental problem that cannot be fixed for normies with a dash of Amber or a pinch of Frost. Or heaven forbid NIP46. There are many reasons why I think so, and don't get me started on iOS, but I’ll leave those for now, sufficed to say that I’m in the signers ain't gonna fix this camp.
Nostr has the basics, but if it’s to be what you say then it'll need a hard fork, to incorporate Farcaster-like “vouched re-spawning”, though without a blockchain.
Without a hard fork, though, there is just no way.

2025-10-28 20:45:15 UTC

- reply

It's definitely getting more web-of-trusty over time. Which is fine, but as you say it means work on the signers becomes paramount.
Anyway I hope it puts this "you are not your nsec" stuff to rest. You bloody well are your nsec here. Expose or lose your nsec and gone forever is the priceless trust that it accumulated. And if that represents months or years of trust accumulation then imagine how demotivated you'd be to start again.

2025-10-28 17:56:05 UTC

- reply

I mean on the oops-lost-my-nsec spectrum that runs from "no big deal" to "catastrophic", this WoT stuff inches nostr ever closer to catastrophic.
Basically it's combining the hardest key management in the world of decentralised social with the biggest penalty for key mismanagement.

2025-10-28 17:46:46 UTC

- reply

All this WoT stuff is going to make it all the more painful when someone loses, or loses sole control over, their nsec. You may not be your nsec, but your WoT score in the eyes of the network sure as heck is.

2025-10-23 18:56:37 UTC

- reply

That's what the people want, despite it not being what nostr wants the people to want.

2025-10-23 16:00:00 UTC

- reply

Its a blood loss issue. If you lose enough blood you go into shock. Same for bitcoin. The old keys will always be vulnerable but on their own maybe to not enough blood loss. But all the not old keys that are known and cant change in time (keep in mind no agreed algo to even change to yet) add them and that’s total shock

2025-10-23 15:23:42 UTC

- reply

That depends on how reliably you want them to be. What you might call "highly reliable" then 12. "Decent reliable" then 24!
The threat to bitcoin's signing keys is Shor's Algorithm, and with a few thousand highly-reliable logical q-bits it's game over for enough keys to cause catastrophic economic failure to the whole network, like a body going into shock.
SHA256 is another thing, that's Grover's algo and to "crack" SHA there's a silly number of operations so you have to take those into account alongside q-bits, and it's like the age of the universe. So "crack" is not quite the right word. But to gain a speed edge is a real thing, and that leads to this difficulty manipulation attacks and other things. (Depends on q-bits but also the machine's raw speed.)
Shor's is enough on it's own to deal a knockout punch to bitcion though, if it happens soon enough.

2025-10-23 14:54:30 UTC

- reply

Nah, that is not true. Look at the history of classic transistors. Every year a prediction, every next year that prediction blown out of the water.
There are many quantum approaches. Topological is an interesting one, but there are others. And generally speaking the number of working logical qubits needed for a quantum computer to break the pre-image resistance of SHA-256 is in the range of thousands. Plus no shortage of motivation, just think of what cracking 256 gets you.
If later this year some researchers announce they've created a machine with 100 logical q-bits, that's be a monumental engineering feat but definitely outside the realm of possibility. (It'd be a ChatGPT3 moment.)
And if that happens later this year then bitcoin is effectively dead, since there is little chance the protection can evolve faster than the threat. Bitcoin hasn't agreed upon a single, standardised post-quantum cryptographic algorithm yet, to say nothing of implemenation. Too busy arguing about op-return and jpegs. That's how it ends.

2025-10-23 14:43:03 UTC

- reply

You're just one of those people that always goes one level down says "prove this exists", and then if someone can you just go one more level down, on to infinity. Gotta stop somewhere or no conversation has meaning.
You used the name Jack but prove the letter J exists. Prove this computer exists. Prove bitcoin exists. Prove the Dodgers are in the world series... Can you prove any of that? I'll wait.

2025-10-23 14:36:38 UTC

- reply

For the core math and mechanics there's no real controversy, just fringe antics. While the core math is settled tho, some "controversy" stems from highly technical arguments about engineering feasibility and timeline. But not the science itself. So that might be where you're seeing mixed messages.

2025-10-23 14:34:45 UTC

- reply

How does one converse with someone for whom nothing is real there's no such thing as proof?
Shrug. Whatever you want to be true, you do you.

2025-10-23 14:23:07 UTC

- reply

If you don't believe in either mathematical geometric proofs or real-world experimental evidence then you don't believe in anything, I'm sorry. Bitcoin might as well be powered by Thor's hammer for you.

2025-10-23 14:17:10 UTC

- reply

There is a way to test. Not by clock time though, since at small scales and high noise clock time doesn't come into it.
You can use IBM's Qiskit to run an experiment to confirm the query complexity scaling, which is the core of the quantum advantage. Other wors, yes you can test and yes you can know that quadratic scaling powered by quantum mechanics is real.
-Run Grover's for a small database of size N1 (e.g., N=4 states).
-Count the optimal number of iterations needed to find the answer.
-Run Grover for a doubled database of size N2 (e.g., N=8 states).Y
-You will find that the optimal number of iterations only increases by a factor of sqrt2, not by 2 (as in no square root).
Don't leave it on a loop tho, IMB charges $100 USD per minute of QPU) time :)

2025-10-23 14:10:29 UTC

- reply

Sorry man. Both geometric proof and real-world experimental proof. Your somewhat wild theory has already been killed off by proof. Done deal.

2025-10-23 13:50:05 UTC

- reply

USDT zaps via native taproot

2025-10-23 13:41:00 UTC

- reply

This is tinfoil hat woo-woo nonsense. I don't know where you're reading this stuff, it sounds like some Deepak Chopra of bitcoin physics, but I'd not go back to that source.
All you really need to know is this. The Grover algo quadratic speedup (Order of sqrt(N) compared to the classical Order of N for an unsorted search space of size N) has been proven. First you've got the geometric proof of quadratic speedup, and if you don't believe in geometric proofs you don't believe in anything, since geometric proofs are as final as it gets in math. Next the principle of this same quadratic speedup has been successfully demoed and validated on the current quantum chips, even with the noise they have. As in without quantum chips enabling quadratic speedup what happened could not have happened.
That's it. There is no Deepak Chopra rhinestone-powered magic going on here. And this is why people who are serious about bitcoin are rightly concerned.

2025-10-23 13:07:37 UTC

- reply

Lol, please. This is mathematically proven, you just have to trust math, not people. Which, for bitcoin people, trusting math is supposed to be everything. We can literarily estimate how many stable logic qbits we need for short-range and long-range attacks, the equations are all there. And the fact that processors can reliably harness quantum mechanics in the way needed for this is also experimentally proven, has been over and over again.
You can see this as scare tactics by the illuminati if you want. But it'd be hilarious if bitcoin went down because bitcoiners one day decided they didn't need to trust math and physics anymore.

2025-10-23 08:50:51 UTC

- reply

We might have 8 years. The nature of unexpected breakthroughs is that they are unexpected. Ten years ago nobody expected us to be where we are with AI now.

2025-10-23 06:29:13 UTC

- reply

You are not at all indicative of the average person.

2025-10-23 06:27:44 UTC

- reply

No it's not that. It's that it's insanely complicated for the average person and on top of that it doesn't have basic features that the average person expects.

2025-10-23 06:24:26 UTC

- reply

>Once they've learned how the protocol works
The protocol is hopelessly complicated. Nothing this complicated is going to work for anyone outside the fringiest of the fringe.