<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1u5njm6g5h5cpw4wy8xugu62e5s7f6fnysv0sj0z3a8rengt2zqhsxrldq3

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsw2feday2t6vqh2hzrnwywd9v6g0yayejgx8cf83g7n3ue594pqtcpzfmhxue69uhk7enxvd5xz6tw9ec82cspp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsz9thwden5te0v4jx2m3wdehhxarj9ekxzmnyqyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2aqpzemhxue69uhkgctkd9jzumn0wd68yvfwvdhk68szpac

Publishing to

Last Notes

2026-01-20 05:04:40 UTC

Fiat: algos are hidden 🙈👎🏻
Freedom tech: algos are out in plain sight 😄👏🏻
How can we choose our algos if we have no idea how they work?

2026-01-20 03:01:54 UTC

- reply

I just started recalculating your Grapevine and it's now in the process of publishing your 30382 events (slowly). Let me know if you don't see them showing up.
Have you been able to see trust scores on Amethyst?

2026-01-15 15:05:08 UTC

#wotathon Community Call is less than an hour away!!
#note1jrr…ezt3

2026-01-14 17:48:24 UTC

Don’t forget — next #wotathon community call is less than 24 hours away!
#note1jrr…ezt3

2026-01-14 03:24:51 UTC

- reply

Just realized I can add people to the group

2026-01-14 03:12:53 UTC

- reply

@npub1t8p…gkvf — help @npub1yn8…6pzj get set up on our WoTathon signal chat!

2026-01-14 02:51:48 UTC

- reply

Glad to see you active in the space! And glad you’re using NostrHub 🔥

2026-01-13 17:13:14 UTC

This was a fun and interesting discussion!
💜🍇🧠⚡️
#note1y4z…lxm8

2026-01-13 00:26:03 UTC

- reply

🎯

2026-01-12 23:57:41 UTC

- reply

Upon rereading your previous message, it seems to me you’re saying the default should ALWAYS be: don’t display them.
Unless you have an exception in mind? If so, what is it?
I’m trying to pin you down bc you advocate for a very generic, very widely-encompassing rule and when I ask WHY this is your stance, you just walk through one specific use case where you don’t show trust scores. And then you extrapolate from the specific case to the general rule (never show scores by default) without justification. I suspect your true motivation is that users will tell you “you can’t put a number to trust.” Which is not true — we can and we do. Still, it’s an understandable (albeit vaguely defined) sentiment, one that MANY users will have, and we should respect our users. So your solution is to tell them “I agree, we can’t put a number to trust, we would never do that! Look, no numbers!!” And yet, putting numbers to trust is *exactly* what we’re doing. It is dishonest to pretend we’re not — hence disrespectful at a very deep level to our users — and many users will sense the dishonesty.

2026-01-12 21:56:32 UTC

- reply

I’m not saying the default should be to display ALL the scores ALL the time. I’m saying sometimes we do, sometimes we don’t. No sense in showering the user with a deluge of confusing numbers for no purpose.
But you’re saying we should never ever display raw trust scores. We should ALWAYS by default hide them under the hood. There are ZERO use cases for showing a 0-100 Trust Score next to a user profile.
Am I misunderstanding your position? Is there at least one use case you can think of where you think we SHOULD show a raw Trust Score by default?

2026-01-12 15:47:08 UTC

- reply

That’s my point.
Me: there are times when you don’t want to display the scores and times when you do want to display the scores.
You: I can think of a use case where you don’t need to display the scores. Therefore nobody should display the scores, for any use case, ever.

2026-01-12 00:35:43 UTC

- reply

I feel like our discussions too often fall into the following pattern:
Me: we’re building a new thing called an automobile. It will get you from city A to city B. It’s awesome.
You: The bicycles I sell are great for getting around town. No one needs automobiles.
Me: ok. Let’s have both. Bikes for short distances, automobiles for long distances. It’s not either-or, it’s both-and.
You: For the specific use case that I’m focused on, getting around town, bikes are awesome. Therefore automobiles have zero use cases. No one will need them, ever, for anything.
🤷🏻‍♂️

2026-01-11 20:05:11 UTC

- reply

cc @npub1t8p…gkvf

2026-01-11 19:50:08 UTC

- reply

Dawn would you ever wanna hop on a #wotathon Thursday community call and take 5 minutes to tell all the devs what you want, what you’re getting, and what you’re not getting out of WoT?

2026-01-11 15:42:06 UTC

- reply

Also: there are use cases that go beyond filtering and sorting in the background.
Suppose someone you don’t follow DMs you. How do you know whether this DM is worth your time and attention? One method is just to hide the DM if the WoT score is below some cutoff. But what should be the cutoff? There will never be one right answer. So a better method is to show the WoT score next to the author, obtained from Trusted Assertions as the 0-100 rank metric, like Amethyst is doing. The end user can decide whether a score of 10 or 50 or 95 is worth looking at. Maybe I have a lot of free time today, so I’ll read the message if rank is above 10. But tomorrow I’m busier so it’ll have to be 90 to catch my eye. And in the case of personalized GrapeRank, a 50 for me may not be a 50 for you, because you and I may have selected different GrapeRank parameters. My “rigor” parameter may be set to a low value (by my choice), so when I see a score of 50 on amethyst, it means “this user is followed/trusted by 5 moderately trusted users”, whereas your “rigor” may be set to a high value, so when you see the same score of 50 on amethyst it carries more weight, bc it means “this user is followed/trusted by 100 highly trusted users”.
We can’t give users control over their user experience if our philosophy is to hide the number crunching and make all the decisions for them.
At the same time, we ALSO need to make it super easy for the end user. If they don’t want to look under the hood, they don’t have to. Which is why GrapeRank comes with default preset parameters. But showing turn numbers, like I described here and like amethyst is doing, will oftentimes be better than simply filtering and sorting under the hood.

2026-01-11 15:08:18 UTC

- reply

It’s easy for us to underestimate how much work it takes for devs to integrate these scores into their clients. Sure, a dev could roll out a new feature using the scores to sort content. But step 1 is simply to import the scores, make sure they’re being imported correctly, and educate the end user that this new tool is available, here is what it is, here is how it works.
The whole point of sovereignty is to put you in charge of your user experience. Which means putting you in charge of the algos that sort your content. Which means users need to be aware what algos are available and how they work. If we just sort content and say “trust me bro, we’re sorting it in the best way possible, please don’t examine the numbers or ask for details about how it works or look under the hood” — that’s the opposite of what we want to achieve.

2026-01-11 14:47:49 UTC

- reply

2026-01-11 14:41:43 UTC

The Brainstorm prototype at straycat.brainstorm.social was down but is back up now. If you sign up, I can calculate your Grapevine — your personalized and portable WoT scores — that can be viewed on Amethyst. CAVEAT: it’s super slow, which is one reason why we’re rebuilding it from scratch at @nprofile…xza3. On the prototype I trigger the calculations manually, and the server can process a handful of customers in a day. The rebuilt Brainstorm will be better in a lot of ways, including much faster. For now, sign up on the prototype and I’ll DM you when your Grapevine is ready!

2026-01-10 00:08:12 UTC

- reply

You sort and filter based on numbers which you’re using as a proxy for trust. The act of calculating and using personalized PageRank means you are ranking.

2026-01-09 23:05:28 UTC

- reply

They can, but they shouldn’t, as I argue in my article. Why not? Main reason: portability.
#naddr1qq…ey5u

2026-01-09 22:38:33 UTC

- reply

For starters, the nostr ecosystem needs WoT Service Providers that calculate WoT scores that are *personalized* and *portable*. I’ve written about this in several of my long form posts over the past few months. Developing this ecosystem is the main thrust of the WoT hackathon at @npub1hea…vp8p, aka our #wotathon that goes through April. Importantly, these WoT Service Providers must be open source, which means you’ll have the option to do all the calculations yourself, as your own SP. Just like you can run your own BTC node and nostr relay if you so desire.
https://nosfabrica.com/wotathon

2026-01-09 22:29:44 UTC

- reply

TrustRank evolved from PageRank. It was inevitable that it would become evil because the entire endeavor was a centralized, global scoring system from the very beginning. The solution is not to get rid of algorithms or scores, but to personalize them.

2026-01-09 22:13:47 UTC

- reply

Do you consider mute lists to be “censorship”? I don’t, and I’m guessing you don’t either. In which case: why do you consider the WoT scores on Amethyst to fit into the censorship category?
I’d argue it’s censorship if it’s centralized, based on global trust scores. And yes, Bluesky is centralized. But if the system is personalized, like a mute list that you manage yourself or the metrics on Amethyst that are personalized to the end user, then no, it’s not censorship.
I should probably point out that the scores on amethyst are calculated using open source software that you can run yourself. You can delegate the calculations to someone else if you wish, but it’s not necessary.

2026-01-09 22:05:13 UTC

- reply

You want to use these scores in the background but pretend like you’re not? So you can tell people you’re not objectifying them even when that’s exactly what you’re doing?

2026-01-09 22:00:08 UTC

- reply

Google’s PageRank was magic. I remember when it first came out. Keyword search went from useless to amazing overnight.
But Google always calculated *global* PageRank. Meaning the PR scores were as seen by Google. The web: as viewed, as filtered, as scored, as judged —- by Google. The Freedom Tech way is for the algos and scores and point of view to be personalized to the end user. Be your own Google, so to speak.

2026-01-09 21:53:11 UTC

- reply

The Primus relay (primus.nostr1.com) uses GrapeRank to power its WoT (aka WOA, Web of Access).
🍇 🧠 ⚡️
@npub10np…tl5h

2026-01-09 21:38:41 UTC

- reply

Or checked out any of the cool projects people are working on? 😃
https://www.kanbanstr.com/#/board/be7bf5de068c1d842ed34a7c270507ec940f5ea51671cfd062a95e9d09420d0a/802f4072-8c60-4eaa-bbb8-5f086d40e585

2026-01-09 21:36:47 UTC

- reply

Have you joined any of our weekly #wotathon community calls?

2026-01-09 16:59:39 UTC

- reply

Some people think bitcoin is evil because “money is the root of all evil.” But to them, money means fiat. They don’t realize that the evils of fiat should not be assumed to apply to decentralized money.
Same thing with reputation. Centralized scoring systems are very Black Mirror. But decentralized scoring systems, where scores are personalized rather than global, belong in a different category.

2026-01-09 16:36:38 UTC

- reply

Amethyst reads personalized trust metrics published using the Trusted Assertions NIP. We’re rebuilding the original Brainstorm prototype (which calculates your personalized GrapeRank scores and publishes them as Trusted Assertions) and ought to have the new version of Brainstorm ready for beta testing soon. 😃

2026-01-09 16:33:53 UTC

- reply

We’re rebuilding the original Brainstorm prototype and ought to have the new version ready for beta testing soon. 😃

2026-01-08 16:03:50 UTC

We’re live!
#note1nfk…e97z

2025-12-18 03:01:27 UTC

- reply

OnlyNostr

2025-12-18 01:22:13 UTC

- reply

Community curation via NostrHub.io will prove itself to be a much more agile and responsive method to reflect changes like this one.

2025-12-09 20:51:34 UTC

Web of trust FTW
#wotathon
#note1gqg…m8k8

2025-11-15 16:51:24 UTC

- reply

Any ideas how to employ WoT into mutable?
Example: suppose I followed some bad actor npub by mistake. Maybe an impersonator that fooled me, or maybe an AI bot with some witty shitposts who was part of a link farm attack. I might want to check to see if I’m following any bad actors so that I can unfollow them!
How? One indicator would be an npub that is highly reported. But you’d want to restrict your attention to reports by non-spammy users, and that’s where WoT comes in.
One of the main thrusts of the #wotathon is to make this super easy for the dev to implement. The idea behind Separation of Trust and Client is that you won’t have to calculate the trust metrics; someone else does that for you. So if Alice follows Bob, and Bob is muted (and reported) by N (or M) users, mutable simply accesses the relevant rank metrics from kind 30382 Trusted Assertions to calculate the “muted by (reported by) N verified users” score.
What do you think?
#naddr1qq…j94u

2025-11-15 16:13:44 UTC

- reply

Yeah, I have not had the bandwidth to give much love to the front end 😅. Too much back end stuff to figure out.
And we’re looking at rebuilding it from scratch. Want to help? 😃

2025-11-15 15:26:23 UTC

- reply

The Brainstorm prototype calculates muter count, total and GrapeRank-filtered. Same for followers and reporters. Graph databases make it easy to craft queries like this and to play around with more complex ones.
Looks like the Mute-O-Scope casts a wider net in terms of raw data, based on the total muter counts. One of the first decisions of a Brainstorm instance owner/operator will be which relays to draw data from.
https://straycat.brainstorm.social/profile.html?pubkey=3f770d65d3a764a9c5cb503ae123e62ec7598ad035d836e2a810f3877a745b24

2025-11-14 16:04:59 UTC

- reply

We should unify our efforts.
A handful of NIPs to spec out APIs to talk to WoT Service Providers.
I suggest:
1. Nostr WoT Connect — Vitor’s suggestion. This allows users to adjust their preferences, eg select algos, adjust parameters, etc. It would include new user sign up. The idea is clients like amethyst can build the front end for users to adjust their preferences, and users see their preferences take effect everywhere they go, which means no need to change WoT prefs over and over again with each new client.
2. WoT Service Provider Management API. This would be for operators of the WoT Service Provider to manage the service. @npub10np…tl5h suggested this and can perhaps take the lead.
3. Maybe a third NIP that describes an API to fetch trust metrics. This is similar in purpose as @npub1wf4…dgh9 ‘s WoT DVM NIP which Vertex uses, but this would not use DVMs. I am guessing a heated discussion can be had over DVMs, one that we won’t resolve in the next week, so let’s just give the community a choice: fetch metrics by this vanilla API NIP or via WoT DVM.
We need some way to come together on these NIPs, and asap as the WoTathon looms near. We can help organize this at @npub1hea…vp8p. We should have input from every WoT service provider: Brainstorm, relatr, Vertex. (Others?) But we also need to take into account the perspective of the other side of these APIs, the clients, a perspective that @npub1gcx…nj5z understands well.
@npub176p…vgup
@npub17pl…ezx0
@npub1qe3…zefe

2025-11-13 23:49:06 UTC

Sophisticated WoT will require queries with many traversals, and IFA (index free adjacency, the defining characteristic of *native* graph dbs) helps with multi-traversal queries.
LMDB does not inherently boast IFA. But is it possible to build it in? Can we marry the lightning speed of LMDB with the advantages of IFA? Yes.
It turns out there are at least two native graph databases built on LMDB: HelixDB and LemonGraph.
HelixDB is new (2025) but supported by y-Combinator and boasts some good benchmarks.
https://www.helix-db.com/blog
LemonGraph appears abandoned, no commits in 3 years.
https://github.com/NationalSecurityAgency/lemongraph
So would HelixDB be a better choice than neo4j for the Brainstorm rebuild? Maybe, maybe not. Two disadvantages of LMDB: first, LMDB is single-writer by design and cannot be made multi-writer without destroying what makes it awesome. If we want Brainstorm to stream large amounts of data, single-writer is fundamentally bad. Second: LMDB requires manual resizing. This might not actually be too much of a problem for Brainstorm, provided the size of the graph remains sufficiently predictable, which it probably will. (A sudden influx of a million nostr users would be a “champagne problem” 😂)
The case for using HelixDB instead of neo4j for the core Brainstorm engine: 1. Reads should be faster, and we’ll be doing a lot of reads. 2. We bite the bullet and accept that we’ll be writing batched data, not streaming, which is probably fine if batches aren’t too far apart. 3. The db size will be relatively predictable, since we’re not ingesting every event, just managing users and their follow/mute/report interrelationships; therefore the LMDB manual resizing problem isn’t an issue.
The case against HelixDB: it’s young and there is LOTS of open source tooling built on neo4j that does not (yet?) exist on HelixDB. Cypher, for instance. And will it be abandoned in a few years? Who knows?
So I’m not completely sold on HelixDB (LMDB with IFA) over neo4j, but it is a contender.
@npub10mt…27hf - thoughts?

2025-11-13 22:11:44 UTC

- reply

All of the above is covered in this article:
#naddr1qq…as25

2025-11-13 22:08:33 UTC

- reply

Traditionally clients have the money to pay for services because they’re monetizing our data and raking in billions of dollars. Our goal is to destroy this business model and replace it with a new one. If anyone monetizes our data, it will be the end user, not some big tech platform.
And WoT will be how we monetize our data. If you want to leave a review for a really good restaurant, the fiat way is you leave your review on Yelp for free and they monetize your review. The way we’re going to pioneer is that you have the option to give your review away for free, but an even better option is that you sell your review for a few sats. And I’m going to be willing to pay you a few sats for your review because my WoT tells me that you’re probably not a bot, you’re probably a person, you probably live in the same town as the restaurant, you probably meet whatever requirements I decide are important to me.
idk if our #wotathon will make it this far, but one of the applications we envision for our Decentralized Lists NIP is that I can start a new decentralized list of something I want — example: best steak restaurants in some town I plan to visit next week. To do this, I publish a kind 9998 event, per the NIP, and it includes a description with whatever details I desire. I then place a bounty of, say, 5000 sats, with automatic payout of 500 sats to anyone in my WoT who submits an item to this list (kind 9999 event) until the bounty runs out. High enough bounty means your desired list gets populated quickly.
How will the bounty be managed? We’re not sure. It might require some sophisticated middleware, like maybe @npub1q6m…x7d5‘s #safebox, but we haven’t thought it all the way through. We are, however, confident that a tractable solution exists and someone will build it. Can someone build it in the next 6 months, in time for the hackathon? Decentralized Lists with a secure bounty system? If someone does it, and does it well, it will be a contender for the win. We will see!

2025-11-13 21:04:43 UTC

Interesting discussion of the challenges of streaming live data into graph databases.
https://youtu.be/Gwgx3OLF1E0

2025-11-13 20:49:43 UTC

- reply

#GrapeRank trust scores are communicated to NostrHub via kind 30382 notes (Trusted Assertions).
Any trust metric service provider, like @nprofile…uz6z , that exports scores using TAs will be *automatically integrated* into NostrHub.
@npub176p…vgup
#nevent1q…gfz6

2025-11-09 15:07:06 UTC

- reply

Gm Derek! ☕️

2025-11-09 04:30:04 UTC

- reply

I mentioned catallax in this presentation I gave a few days ago about NosFabrica and WoT. Starts at around the 12 or 15 minute mark.
https://weare.dcnh.tv/w/samrGVvVY514sasUi3oLmr

2025-11-07 18:28:12 UTC

- reply

This would be awesome for the upcoming @npub1hea…vp8p WoT Hackathon. Either a generic decentralized lists app, or use decentralized lists to serve a client-specific purpose, like curated lists of musicians, recipes, etc.
#wotathon
#naddr1qq…as25

2025-11-07 04:35:30 UTC

- reply

btw I like the idea of a hybrid solution. Brainstorm is essentially a hybrid, with strfry and neo4j on a single server.

2025-11-07 00:36:20 UTC

- reply

Who makes the categories? Excellent question. Ok for you as dev to make them for starters, but the only answer that will work in the long run is that your WoT needs to manage the categories.
Which is why I authored this Decentralized Lists custom NIP:
#naddr1qv…2pm6

2025-11-07 00:25:48 UTC

- reply

The main challenge as I see it is to ingest a high volume of events in real time. I’d love to see a general purpose nostr graph db relay, although I don’t think it will ever be as performant as non-graph relays for routine relay functionality.
Did you ever have any difficulties with real time data ingestion? Could you process them one at a time or did you need to batch them together at regular intervals? Or perhaps there was never a high enough volume of DVMs for this to be an issue?

2025-11-07 00:08:39 UTC

- reply

The primary goal of our upcoming #wotathon is to establish an ecosystem of Service Providers for personalized trust metrics, as described in the article below. As a user, I don’t want to see one Trust Score for Alice on Primal, another one on Amethyst, and another one on each new client I visit. I want to see the same personalized metrics on EVERY client I visit. Which means the clients will not be the ones calculating them (for the most part).
What will Primal do once nostr moves in this direction? My hope, and my expectation, is that Primal will either incorporate personalized trust metrics calculated outside of Primal, or will make their own internal service provider which makes personalized metrics available everywhere, internally but also *outside* Primal. In other words, they’d make their own competitor to other Service Providers. They already keep track of lots of data so building a standalone Primal Personalized Trust Metric Service should be doable — just gotta decide what metrics to calculate.
One of the effects of Service Providers is going to be to take power out of the hands of clients. It is valid to be concerned that Primal is on the road to becoming just another Twitter, but the rise of Personalized Trust Service Providers may be how we prevent this from happening.
#naddr1qq…3qra

2025-11-06 23:04:20 UTC

- reply

This is awesome! Custom hashtag feeds, using #graperank to mitigate spam. 💪🏻🍇

2025-11-02 23:33:24 UTC

- reply

I want to take a step back and consider a bigger question. It’s related and I don’t know the answer.
Currently, a wiki entry or nip nip can be edited by the event author. So how can we enable the community to edit an existing NIP?
One way would be something like git versioning, where your WoT decides what gets merged, but idk if that can work and even if it can, we’re far from ready to implement it.
So here’s another idea. Take NIP-73 as an example. Take the existing version and express it using the nip nip. But we don’t copy the whole thing verbatim. Instead, we replace the table of Supported ID Types with a Decentralized List, one for each type. Each list item adds a row to the table and maybe also includes a corresponding explanation and example.
So when it comes time for you to propose support for NIPs, you simply add another item to the list of supported types.
The complexity would be we’d need a script to ingest the curated list and spit out a markdown file. We’d have to figure out how to make that work.
And we will need to implement vanilla list curation first.

2025-11-02 22:47:28 UTC

- reply

Is this what people will use to manage their relay settings and relay tools account? Or more general purpose than that?

2025-11-02 21:58:12 UTC

- reply

By two event kinds you mean as a wiki entry or using @npub1q3s…d26p ‘s NIP NIP. For now, the NIP NIP has advantages over the wiki entry method, like a specialized way to list all event kinds used by the NIP.
Are the NIPs at the top of NostrHub pulled directly from GitHub or are they wiki events?

2025-11-02 21:04:59 UTC

- reply

not appropriate?
If Alice writes some piece of content that is a parameterized replaceable event, Bob likes the content, and then Alice updates it, I may want to know whether Bob liked the current version or a previous version.
Suppose Alice turns out to be a bad actor. She vibe coded a good NIP, got some likes, then swapped it out for spam. If Bob endorses spam I’ll be inclined to think maybe he’s a bad actor too, but how do I know whether he liked the spammy version or a previous (non spammy) version?
You’ll point out that the old event will be discarded, so we won’t be able to find the old version, so we won’t know what he liked. If so, we’ll at least know whether Bob liked the current version or some previous (no longer existing) version, information which may be useful even if it doesn’t tell the whole story. And there’s also the possibility that older versions of parameterized content get stored by design for some particular set of use cases, even if that’s not the usual practice.

2025-11-02 20:33:55 UTC

- reply

Is this a relay on android or an android app that talks to a remote relay tools server?

2025-11-02 18:24:35 UTC

- reply

Here’s a question: how should we go about transferring existing NIPs from the old system to the new? Would we like original authors to do it, since they’re replaceable events?
Which just now makes me wonder: when we like or dislike a NIP, should the kind 7 event have both an a tag and an e tag? And leave it up to users to decide whether to pay attention to one or the other or both?

2025-11-02 16:04:28 UTC

- reply

4:20:69

2025-10-31 20:49:33 UTC

- reply

This is awesome 💪🏻

2025-10-31 20:30:52 UTC

- reply

Brainstorm sends 10040 events to Brainstorm relays ( nip85.brainstorm.world and straycat.brainstorm.social/relay ) but also primal, damus, nostr.band, maybe 1 or 2 others

2025-10-30 20:38:15 UTC

- reply

Will the real Jay please stand up? 😅

2025-10-30 20:22:27 UTC

- reply

Also: @nprofile…f453 is working on a neo4j nostr relay in go and has put a lot of thought into overall graph db relays architecture. I think graph db relays could form their own special class of relay and it could be fruitful for a gunDB relay dev and neo4j relay dev to bounce ideas off each other.

2025-10-30 06:19:19 UTC

- reply

If I want to discover instances where Alice reacts to a kind 1 note authored by Bob, I’ll need indices for content in addition to indices for users.

2025-10-30 05:22:35 UTC

- reply

A billion users doesn’t mean n = a billion. If you’re looking at how people interact with each other, you’ll need a lot of indices for a lot of events.

2025-10-30 04:01:38 UTC

- reply

Native graph dbs can execute *performant* path queries that are *long and complicated*.

2025-10-29 17:42:19 UTC

- reply

NostrHub already supports comments.

2025-10-29 17:32:39 UTC

- reply

I’d say to keep the UX as clean as possible. Perhaps popups with very simple 1 or 2 sentence explanations of what the user is looking at.
And I’m inclined to resist the temptation to provide too much in the way of a didactic explanation of what the upvotes and downvotes “mean.” The like button on social media ends up meaning different things to different people, and that’s fine. We can add more sophisticated methods of feedback in the future, but we don’t need to do that now. Baby steps.

2025-10-29 00:23:15 UTC

If we want good UX, we need investment.
If we want investment, we need monetization.
Where does monetization fit into freedom tech?
WoT fixes this™️

2025-10-28 16:44:49 UTC

- reply

It would be a tradeoff.
If Alice has encrypted mutes (or other content) and elects to use that in her personalized grapevine calculations, AND if she allows her personalized trust metrics to be publicly available (eg Trusted Assertions), then in theory people might be able to make educated guesses regarding her encrypted mute list. In practice that would usually be difficult but there could certainly be edge cases where people could infer with some confidence.
There would be several strategies to mitigate this, including but not limited to:
1. Encrypted TAs
2. Obfuscate which published grapevine is “her” grapevine. TAs allow me to publish a kind 10040 note saying I want to use anyone’s grapevine, not necessarily mine. So she could in essence use her grapevine with plausible deniability. Which isn’t a perfect solution, but probably pretty good for many scenarios.
Lots of tradeoffs to be made.

2025-10-28 16:01:39 UTC

Wow - I didn’t know you had that much under your belt already
#note1yst…gfps

2025-10-25 16:00:51 UTC

Here’s a little theoretical physics paper I published back in 2008. One of my motivations for building WoT is to help me find other people with similar intuitions so we can develop these ideas further.
https://fondationlouisdebroglie.org/AFLB-333/aflb333m533.pdf
#physics
#wot

2025-10-23 00:16:34 UTC

- reply

Sounds like there will be lots of instances where a WoT Service Provider would want to deliver a bloom filter instead of a big list.
Big lists cause several problems:
1. Unwieldy to transmit by API; even just a slight delay could result in bad UX, depending on the use case
2. Won’t fit in a single event due to size limits
3. Slows down processing when using the list for whatever the recipient is using it for.
Any rule of thumb estimates we should keep in the back of our minds as to how big a list of pubkeys or event ids should be before we should think about delivering a bloom filter instead?

2025-10-22 13:27:15 UTC

- reply

And the name GrapeRank makes sense as a reference to PageRank. Both are centrality algorithms.

2025-10-20 05:42:07 UTC

Imagine using the Decentralized Lists custom NIP to create a list of “pubkeys whose npubs I’ve verified with the owner in detail in the flesh in real life”. Maybe a shorter title but the description could be as detailed as desired.
Then use Trusted Assertions to fetch the “rank” metric and using that to curate the list.
There you go, decentralized proof of personhood.
https://nostrhub.io/naddr1qvzqqqrcvypzpef89h53f0fsza2ugwdc3e54nfpun5nxfqclpy79r6w8nxsk5yp0qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2aqqzdjx2cm9de68yctvd9ax2epdd35hxarnwrn9hx

2025-10-19 02:53:38 UTC

To bring WoT to nostr, we need two primitives:
1. a way to ask questions
2. a way to answer them
or, stated another way:
1. a way to represent information
2. a way to curate information
or, stated another way:
1. the concept graph
2. the grapevine
or, stated another way:
1. Decentralized Lists (Custom NIP)
2. NIP-85: Trusted Assertions
or, stated another way:
1. math
2. physics
https://nostrhub.io/naddr1qvzqqqrcvypzpef89h53f0fsza2ugwdc3e54nfpun5nxfqclpy79r6w8nxsk5yp0qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2aqqzdjx2cm9de68yctvd9ax2epdd35hxarnwrn9hx

2025-09-04 13:23:02 UTC

- reply

GM! ☀️

2025-05-02 18:31:23 UTC

- reply

I suppose I may as well. I mean, people do keep saying you can just do things … 😂
Once I finish the optimization I’m working on, maybe that next.

2025-05-02 15:00:09 UTC

- reply

So does npub.world uses your DVM or not? If a competitor were to offer personalized PageRank scores via DVM then npub.world would not accept them?

2025-05-01 20:17:59 UTC

- reply

That third profile has multiple 🍇-verified reports as an impersonator
https://straycat.brainstorm.social/profile.html?pubkey=990694581c58124489d0b08dfa4d2a7523a713b16a829a0bc161ad82bffdc915

2025-05-01 18:02:47 UTC

- reply

If your personal WoT relay stores all the notes of any given kind, no one has to know which ones you’re reading.

2024-06-19 13:20:43 UTC

- reply

That reminds me: I ought to add a feature at brainstorm.ninja that allows you to export a list of pubkeys with their influence scores. That will allow other clients to import the list and use it for whatever purpose they want.
Only problem is filesize. Not sure how big is too big. I’d make it a parameterized replaceable list so at least there’d only be one list per profile.