nips VS rfcs

I'm interested in this too. While I note the [slightly chaotic] plethora of NIPs[0], and many of them look blockchainy, NIP-01 is looks ultra pragmatic and simple, and is the only one that is required to be implemented, AFAIK.

  [0] https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips

For you and others following. Common in early nostr apps. The web-extension spec is defined in https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/07.md. Most apps check for window.nostr, then fail silently when it's missing or blocked. There are also some popular extensions in that list.

https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/65.md

The TLDR is that when a Nostr client supports NIP-65, it broadcasts to all known relays (which is continually updated/expanded) the list of relays that User A posts their stuff to.

This means that as long as User B is connected to at least one of those "all known relays", their client now knows what relays User A posts their stuff to, and will specifically fetch things from those relays when it needs to load User A's things.

It's essentially the Nostr take on the Gossip protocol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossip_protocol

I think your best bet here is Nostr (Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays): https://nostr.com https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nostr

Nostr isn't a federated platform like Mastodon or Lemmy, it's more similar to the AT protocol created by Bluesky, whilst being far simpler to understand and write apps using it. The nostr protocol is defined by a series of NIPs (Nostr implementation possibilites https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips), the most basic of which can be implemented in a client or a relay in 50-100 lines of code in any modern programming language.

Each user runs a client, anyone can write a relay or run any of hundreds of existing implementations, both clients and relays can choose to support a number of NIPs. Users have a public-private keypair, and distribute notes to relays signed with their private key, which are verified by relays. Clients subscribe via websockets to any number of relays (I usually have 20-30), and receive notes from all users on those relays' databases, or filtered by the public keys of the users you're following. Relays for the most part don't communicate with each other. If you're ever blocked or banned from a relay, you'll still be able to have your notes seen as long as you have at least one relay in common with anyone who wants to see them. I run my own as well for extra resiliency.

At the moment there's ~50 standardised NIPs, which add features like likes, zaps (bitcoin tips for notes), user status, post expiration, mentions, search, DMs, and public chats. Nearly all of these are supported by popular clients and relays. While nostr is primarily used for social media at the moment, it's already possible to build upon as a protocol for pretty much any online service.

The total active user count on most public relays I'd estimate is somewhere around 500k to a million, though the nature of the protocol makes it impossible to estimate its true size. The perceived community on most relays before following anyone frankly can get pretty cancerous, mainly due to a lot of clients sorting notes by new by default, so I can only hope to high heaven it'll improve as it grows.

Though like any new non-centralised platform, it's more difficult to get started on for most non-technical users as they have to pick one of hundreds of clients to install, and requires caution to never leak your private key and be very wary of which clients you trust it with.

There is no "zaps balance". Zaps are just receipts of lightning payments.

The basic idea is that a lightning node will detect when the invoice with a nostr note inside is paid, and then send the receipt to nostr as a nostr note, with the original bolt11 invoice inside with the signature from the user who sent the zap.

It's all describe by NIP-57, a spec I put together to support this:

https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/57.md

I was working on c-lightning at the time and I thought it would be really cool to replace the "like" button with an instant bitcoin micro-payment. I think it worked out quite well! There are many sites utilizing zaps in all aspects of the protocol, such as a decentralized market for AI job requests (data vending machines), zapgoals and zap fundraisers. All built on this note type. protocol synergy!

Take a look at NIP-23: Long-form Content https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/23.md .

You may consider this view biased, but we have this: https://srid.ca/nixos-mod

* September 2023: The "Nix Community Survey 2023" is looking for gender data, and the mods don't like that most contributors are men.

* November 2023: The moderation team tries to institute a Code of Conduct https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/114 ... and they get their way

* November 2023: Some are not happy about it: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/moderation-team-accountability... -- the moderators talk about their "authority" and of course lock and hide the thread. It's "disruptive" and "off-topic", you see.

* This sort of activity continues -- moderators consolidating and increasing their power, citing how they need the power to control "concern trolls" and such -- and now in April 2024, we get https://save-nix-together.org/

The "anonymous contributors" want to drive out the NixOS founder entirely, so that _they_ are in charge. They want "to hold people accountable for bad behaviour at all levels" and lament having "responsibility without authority" - in other words, they want power, power, power. They want power over everyone. Their justification is that they believe they have the moral high ground, and they deserve to lord it over everyone else.

Hold onto that hard power, Eelco, and tell this lot to fork the project. Let's see how they enjoy moderating noxious.org instead of nixos.org

https://old.reddit.com/r/NixOS/comments/1ceiz36/thoughts_on_...

And the RFC to improve the situation:

https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/175

> (after eelco ignored the PR for quite a while, also!)

Clicking that link takes us to a PR that was opened on 2024-02-02. The initial response from the Nix author comes 7 minutes later. Puck has multiple back and forths with other members Github, but her next interaction with the Nix author comes the next day on 2024-02-03. This is also the first time in the conversation where she "reminds him ... to even read her PR message". There's a second interaction later that same day during which she does similar, but it's worth noting this is pointing to a different message and appears to be less a "reminder to read" and more re-iterating what they feel is their argument against the Nix author's own arguments. Puck then continues to have back and forth with other commenters but as of today, there has been no further comments from the Nix author after 2024-02-03, and no further comments from Puck after 2024-02-08.

This hardly to my mind qualifies either as "having to remind him multiple times to even read her PR message at all" or "after eelco ignored the PR for quite a while, also!" So as I said it's a fairly weak claim, and feels more like a "bastard eating crackers" reaction to the PR than an actual showing of poor behavior.

As for the "Meson example", I didn't ignore it. As I stated in my comment, I had at that point read two of the referenced discussions in detail, and thus commented on them. I didn't comment in the "Meson example" for the simple reason that I hadn't read it.

I have read it now, and equally find it confusing.

1) The claim in the letter is that the proposal has "passed RFC, for five years", yet the RFC itself only appears to have been opened 2022-08-24. It's been a while since grade school for me, and I'll admit COVID has warped all our sense of time, but I'm pretty sure 2022 is not 5 years ago.

2) The first completed working implementation of the change doesn't appear to have been done until 2023-01-18 (https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132#issuecomment-13874661...). Again this is much less than 5 years old.

3) On 2023-03-20, the author of the PR for this change states:

> the RFC has made it past most of the early stages and the current goal is to achieve parity with the current buildsystem before replacing it.

(https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132#issuecomment-14768433...)

Again, this doesn't seem to fit at all with the claim that the proposal has "passed RFC, for five years"

4) On 2023-11-01, the Nix author themselves asks for updates on the RFC implementation, an action which doesn't seem congruent with someone who is willy nilly single handedly blocking things and being a disruption to the process. And the author of the PR states:

>the main block is actually a lack of free time for the main devs!

(https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132#issuecomment-17890770...)

This doesn't seem to point to evidence that the Nix author is single handedly holding up this process.

5) On 2024-03-21 the PR author notes:

> currently working on adding support to build nix-perl, waiting for assistance

(https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132#issuecomment-20135356...)

Not to sound like a broken record, but if the issue isn't finished as of a few weeks ago, it can hardly be considered to be held up by the Nix author for 5 years.

I agree that one of the links in the open letter is to a comment on a PR from 2019, which is indeed 5 year ago, and does indeed contain the Nix author commenting that they are skeptical of the change because "he doesn't know meson but knows his own build system". But given that there's an entire wealth of history on the topic since then, including progress on the feature that appears completely unobstructed by the Nix author and an open PR that is a mere 3 weeks old for a current implementation, I find myself again unconvinced of this rampant bad behavior on the part of the Nix author. And I reiterate again that these complaints are very weak and don't do much to support the open letter at best, and act as contrary evidence at worst.

Again there might be other context to be had that is missing, but if one is going to write a massive "open letter" complaining about bad behavior, I expect the links in that letter to point to actual bad behavior, and or provide the relevant context necessary to show how what appears to be normal dissent is a passive aggressive continuation of obstruction. I have to assume the links one provides in an open letter is their strongest evidence, and if this is all the authors have... I am unconvinced.

Nix with dynamic derivations (RFC92) could potentially beat this curse.

https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/blob/master/rfcs/0092-plan-dyn...

See: A plan to stabilize the new CLI and Flakes incrementally https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/136

NixOS recently introduced "problem" infrastructure to deal with such problems more gracefully and explicitly:

https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/blob/master/rfcs/0127-issues-w...

For some more context: Flawed as they are, Flakes solve a large number of problems Nix experiences without them. This is why I, and presumably many others, use them even in their current experimental state.

An RFC was recently accepted to commit to forming a plan towards stabilization of Flakes: https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/136

Personally, I don't believe there won't be any breaking changes, but I also believe that the stabilization of Flakes is still a ways away and hope that there will be a reasonable migration path.