Thread - Nostr Hypermedia

Vitor Pamplona

Feels like it's what @ hodlbod and @water783 have been doing in their group impls. They just use NIP-44 instead of MLS. IMHO Large Groups do not need the same level of privacy that DMs or smaller groups need. It all depends on the size and expectations. It would be nice to have the group ID derived from a seed so that the group can be split into as many subgroups as necessary. Clients would just derive... say 300 ids... and subscribe to all of them. Similarly, they would also randomly choose an ID out of the 300 to send each new message.

View quoted note →

Low Information Voter 1 year ago

Vitor Pamplona

Feels like it's what @ hodlbod and @water783 have been doing in their group impls. They just use NIP-44 instead of MLS. IMHO Large Groups do not need the same level of privacy that DMs or smaller groups need. It all depends on the size and expectations. It would be nice to have the group ID derived from a seed so that the group can be split into as many subgroups as necessary. Clients would just derive... say 300 ids... and subscribe to all of them. Similarly, they would also randomly choose an ID out of the 300 to send each new message.

View quoted note →

JeffG _@jeffg.fyi 1 year ago

Yeah, funny you picked up on the derived IDs for groups. I talked about that with @Max earlier today. I think that's mostly a client implementation detail instead of a protocol level thing but it's a cool idea to make it harder to triangulate on the size or membership of groups.

1 replies ↓

Vitor Pamplona _@vitorpamplona.com 1 year ago

We made the DM spec thinking on protections for activists. Making sure people can't bundle them as a group is key. I don't know if it is possible, but it would be great if the same protections were also available in large groups. Keep in mind that if it is not in the protocol, it is going to be hard to get any traction. Giving options to clients just breaks interoperability.

1 replies ↓

Replies (4)