Replies (58)
Why unencrypted?
Because it's easier. It gets clients moving faster. And looking at how people use replies as chat, I don't even think encryption is needed for most stuff.
I was thinking the same thing while noodling around with a bit hat nostr bridge. What Kind are messages-to-nobody
We need a way to stop DM spam. I think it should be required that everyone has to pay some Satoshi in order to send a DM. The Satoshi goes to the npub getting the DM.
That would kill almost all spam
and when they say "pay more " how much do you think you're willing yo pay? how high will you go? and then what? pay or? what's the plan?
WhiteNoise has that. You can only send messages to individuals that you got the message key for.
Fair, but a clear way to delineate encrypted vs public chat would be worthwhile. Most people don’t understand the difference, but assume “private” means “encrypted”.
I think we can just show them in notifications and allow people to reply to it there. So, no full chat anywhere.
what do you mean pay more? It would be coded into the client. For example. Amethyst would require 2 Satoshi in order to start a DM. The DM starter pays the invoice and he can send a DM
The receiver has no say on how much it cost.
So basically like kind-1 but without followers seeing it by default? But if my client shows all my follows events, I can still chime in to your unencrypted "DM"s which would help to make clear they are not private?
not the receiver. vitor! or whoever sets the price , can change it to whatever they want. whenever.
So basically twitters posts starting with @ …
The problem with white noise is you still need to get the key somehow.
That’s exactly the problem. If you can’t message someone until you’ve gotten their key.
My idea doesn’t rely on key exchanges or hidden access control. It keeps things open: anyone can message you, but they have to pay a small amount of Sats to do it. That cost filters out spam automatically, and the recipient gets paid. No need for trust establishment or awkward key sharing upfront.
Systems like WhiteNoise are fine for closed messaging, but they don’t scale for open networks. What I’m proposing is a better fit for Nostr's principles open, global, censorship-resistant communication with built-in incentives and spam resistance.
call it SMS, a digital postcard
The relays would set the price, or each individual profile would set their own price and the price would be listed.
If a relay changes it just go to another relay but relays are not going to change it daily. Why would they do that?
If someone doesn't want to be messaged it's their right.
SimpleX is public?
Basically, yes. It will be too hard to get kind1 clients to agree to not show posts starting with a name in their feeds :)
Yeah, anyone could reply to the chat. It just doesn't show to your followers because they don't need to see it.
"if someone doesn't want to be messaged it's their right"
that is accomplished by #blocking, not paying someone #protection. that's #extortion. and will be #exploited.
this is #notagoodidea.
I don't know why you're so upset you can't message someone unless you pay a small fee. Are you using other accounts to spam others? because that's what I suspect your doing.
This is the most stupid idea i've heard in quite a while. No normie expects that all his dm's are straight public visible for everyone. Terrible idea if not even straight evil.
Then don't implement it. We are doing it.
A chat room!
How is this better than NIP-04?
It doesn't make any fake privacy and security claims. :)
No, I thought your were looking for something that may have encryption but doesn't need to
If you want something publicly visible then why call it a "DM".
What you want is just @ mentioning someone.
My message here to you could be considered a public DM.
I have no doubt that you'll implement it. Some people just like doing evil things.
DM means "direct message". PM is private message. No one should expect any privacy from simply saying DMs.
This makes very good sense.
No, no chat room. Just messages poping in on notifications. No chat history.
As a visual learner, I need to see this in practice to fully understand this concept. Truly curious about this idea
What’s your opinion on
@White Noise, Vitor?
Tip: As soon as #Shakespeare Act II launches, #MKStack can even write NIPs. Tried it myself.
Mastodon fixes this
Direct message and private message are basically synonymous to me.
Yeah I don't do Twitter/X but there DMs are private and I think on other platforms too.
OK, I don't get it. You want to talk to people but not remember what the conversation is about?
So, email?
We could work on clarifying the shortcomings rather than add a 4th direct messaging scheme?
Twitter already had special handling for posts that start with an @
Why wouldn’t Nostr with kind 1s?
Because it is impossible to get all clients to agree to hide these posts from the timeline. It's easier to just create a new kind for them.
Have you already received a bonus in the new project Beast?
What's the intended use case? Is it specifically for chats to the recipient or is it for things you want others to see? And if you want others to see and reply to it, why not a kind-1 note? If you dont care if others see it, it doesn't have any benefit over an encrypted DM so why would anyone specifically want it instead of an encrypted message? Currently looks like the only use case is for low key virtue signalling. What were you trying to do that made you type this up?
Because on a kind 1 your followers will see a post that doesn't make any sense for them to see. It's not a problem that it is public, it's just noise for them.
Slightly off-topic, but why on the "Notes & Replies" section (for Amethyst and others) do we have to see the replies instead of just the root note and an indicator that your follow has replied N times in that thread? It's a weird UX to me having to click through replies without context.
Sound like another bandaid for the Feed paradigm.
It's usually because the Reply part (named conversations) on Amethyst is used to see what your follows are doing. So, everything they do show up there. If they are participating in a stream, it shows the stream and their message, for instance.
But why would you want it to be unencrypted when you can just as easily send an encrypted message
Because an encrypted message requires the recipient using a chat client, which very, very few do and most clients will never implement encryptions.
What does nostr DMs currently use?
NIP 17
And why would I ever willingly use your new DM instead of the existing encrypted DM? Isn't over-proliferation of encryption a much better world than only using it when necessary? I personally have never said "damn. I wish it were easier for others to read this message I'm sending to a single specific recipient". I would understand if there were serious tradeoffs to make it work, but nip 17 does everything a user expects from DMs. Some find it not private enough but no one finds it too private.
This is not a replacement for nip17, which I helped create. It's just something easier that could be more available even in clients that don't have chats.
Is nip17 hard to implement? Do you think it's worth the tradeoff with careless users using some of these chats for more private convos than they warrant?
For example, no one should have any expectation of privacy in a clash of clans clan chat, but I've said some dumb shit in there as a kid that I would be fucked if it got leaked. No one *should* say anything there that they would be worried about leaking, but the reality is, they will, and we'd be better off if everything was encrypted.
Is it not better to make an extremely easy to use library to send DMs with even a very rudimentary encryption? It shouldn't make any claims about privacy it can't back up, but the "bad" option should still be better than plaintext.
People are using replies to talk, not chat. So, they are already public.
Is this reply thread an example of a convo you would want to move to this new kind? How would that work?
I don't really get the use case.
If I reply like I do to you now, its very much meant to be a public discussion so I want people to see that so they can partake to.
There is no implication of it being private or hidden at all.
If I DM you in Amethyst I want that to be fully encrypted and metadata safe to where others can't even see we are talking, if someone can't see that they need to adopt a better client, or alternatively i'd need to explicitly full screen warning agree that I am about to leak data.
Unencrypted DM's would just be a full on no-go in that, I don't want to have to guess if my data is metadata safe, metadata unsafe or completely unsafe.
Right now Amethyst is the only Nostr app I have on Android and I like it a lot, but if I can't trust it to send DM's in a metadata safe way it means i'd instantly stop using DM's on it and i'd use a secure messenger instead.
Because to me the concept of a hidden but unencrypted message fails on a platform that lets me read them by using a pubkey.
