Also it’s downfall

Do you suggest not having a follow list? Because that is web of trust.

Nah wont agree on that. Nostr cant be trusted as bitcoin itself can. Bitcoin is one and nostr is a whole bunch. Lol.

Then delete your follow list and see if anything will work. :)

That’s the people I want to get updates from not the ones I trust. The ones I trust are not properly represented by my follows although there is an overlap. With that out of the way, I’m talking about Web of Trust used as a filter for content: it’s only great for users that have a established follower base, not great at all for an organic user who just joined who can’t get visibility into their posts. Ask any new user how great Web of Trust is: never mind you probably won’t see their answers if you have such filtering active.

Thats just people i follow doesnt have anything to do with this so called Trust everyone is talking about here as if we found it on the side of the road. Half of everyone's following list are untrustworthy anons 🥳✨️ Or Nostr has a different definition for TRUST.

Connections are more valuable than bitcoin. Yes. To bad it took me so long to learn this. I've probably burnt my WoT here being to opinionated on topics, being a dick, etc.

I agree, but that is not a problem of web of trust, it is a problem of that specific implementation. Filtering content by WoT can be great for new users too. We just need to get rid of this idea that WoT only means reputation-based algos. In other words, the filter cut off should be on the negative score, not on zero.

Bitcoin is about no trust at all. Nostr is about building your own web of trust.

Don’t say core , you’re gonna start a fight

That would certainly be an improvement over the current situation.

That’s interesting. Should … NIP-85 spec accommodate negative values for ‘rank’?

GitHub

Trusted Assertions by vitorpamplona · Pull Request #1534 · nostr-protocol/nips

Certain calculations in Nostr require access to the entire dataset of events and are impossible to do directly by Clients. This PR offers a simple ...

@Vitor Pamplona, are you suggesting that users would NOT be able to customize their own WoT algos … to make zero use of follow lists? Webs of trust does not require follow lists … in the future tense.

Webs of Trust is everything. View quoted note →

It doesn't, but nostr requires follow lists or follow relays. Nostr is web of trust by design. There is no way to run Nostr without web of trust.

This is true.

I think many (if not most) of us here have very definite opinions on a lot of things, and are angry at the shitty state of things. 😂 You're good, man. I just posted on Twitter the other day "Lawrence Lepard taught me it's perfectly valid to crash out on Twitter when people are being retarded".

Having no follow list is the dream. Web of trust is the stairway to heaven 🌈

I think the confusion comes in because of a disconnect on what is meant by "trust" in this context. It's not that, "I would trust this person with my life," or "I would trust this person to not to rug-pull me." Rather, it's simply, "I trust that this npub will continue posting notes that I will be interested in seeing." And as soon as they prove that trust to be misplaced, you 86 them from your follow list so you no longer see their notes.

It's not so much a different definition of trust so much as what we are trusting them for. By following an npub, you indicate that you trust it will be used to post content that is of interest to you. If they start posting a bunch of content that you don't care about in the slightest, that trust is broken and you remove them from your follow list, or even go so far as to mute them. Muting is even higher signal, because it indicates that you trust a certain npub will post nothing that is of interest to you, to the point that you don't ever want to see what they have to say.

What about that verification site. It gives high scores based on protocol and not actual trust. Nostr talks about Trust. It involves much more than an on site calculations that person is acquiring for a very long time. Ill just drop this i can see that Trust is something else online. But when people tell me dont trust verify on the site... I went there and I saw how much trust did some accounts accumulated on Nostr being complete bogus and fake. So trust is you and you can only trust yourself here there is nothing to verify.

Sorry, which verification site are you talking about?

Profilstr. If I tell you which kind of bullshit I saw since I came. Thank God I lost all those fake accounts. Nostr is full of fake representation accounts.

Now that so makes sense. I have to blast this one out. When I arrived I was "advised" to check for profilstr to see who can be trusted... later on i realised its only you yourself who you need to trust. And who can judge who can be trusted and not profilstr.

Yeah, I hadn't ever heard of Profilestr.com until you mentioned it. Looks like they aren't using web-of-trust to generate those "trust" scores at all. Rather it is being based on metrics that are pretty easy to game, such as profile completeness, account age, social activity, and economic activity. So, while a known fake account I found has a "trust" score on Profilestr of 67 (Blue indicator rather than green which appears to be "best"), it has a Web-of-Trust score of 0 for me on Coracle.social, which is a clear indicator to me that this is a fake npub. Speaking of which... @Marakesh 𓅦 , it looks like you are following a fake Hodlbod. This one is not real: @npub1nyrf...lzp9

Exactly 💯. I had in the beginning someone to be pointing out his trust score on profilestr as a proof of trust. In the beginning I didnt use nostr well. Not knowing I was spamming with long hashtags after a lot of people muted me due to that I got some fishy people around me and their head to advise me. He was pointing that he can be trusted and proof is Profilestr. And that is where I should look at. Me working in casinos for a good part of my life I called it bullshit on 1st.

Yeah, to know whether a "trust score" should be meaningful to you from any site, you have to know how it is being calculated. Profilestr appears to be a worthless ranking. And yes, people around here will consider it spam to use a long list of hashtags. Two or three hashtags that are relevant to your post is the way to go.

Yes. I didnt know that. As a bitcoin beginner I advised myself wrong. Chat gpt was a complete ass at the time. It gave me that long list of hashes. Lol. But I now know better. 🥳🔥✨️

My npub is not fake. I write my own notes every once in a while, but I usually reply to other people's notes. I have a score of 0 in WoT according to coracle.social .

You have no single "score" in Coracle. Every npub will have a different score for you based on their own web-of-trust. For instance, your score for me is 9. When I speak about fake vs real accounts, I am not talking about npubs that don't have any impostors. There aren't any other 🥚 profiles out there trying to represent themselves as you. You're a nym and one of a kind, as far as I can tell. I am talking about people like @jack who are well known individuals, and who have numerous npubs trying to dupe people into thinking they are the real jack. As soon as you have other npubs trying to pass themselves off as you, there will be a question of which one is real and which one is fake. Then web-of-trust score can be very helpful for differentiating, because no one has impostors trying to pose as them until they are well-known enough that the real one should have a naturally high web-of-trust score.

Oh, I am not logged into coracle, so a score of 0 makes sense.

Yup. That makes sense. When you look at your own profile in Coracle, while logged in, you typically have a pretty high score, because many of the people you follow often also follow you. For instance, my score for myself is 254.

Thanks. I have unfollowed the imposter @ hodlbod, but I have also been following the real deal for some time now.

Zapped 👊

right. need both to build a cybereconomy

you guys are both only thinking about social feeds. re-consider the above discussion in the context of

Catallax - A Protocol for Pseudonymous Contract Work Economies

Catallax is an open protocol that enables pseudonymous contract work economies. It runs over Nostr, Bitcoin and Cashu ecash for censorship-resistan...

for instance

This looks like something which might bootstrap using web-of-trust, but really will end up relying on proven reputation, with web-of-trust for filtering out those trying to build fake reputation attestations.

Yep, we're already doing that with GrapeRank in the #catallax demo client: But it's a circular cold-start problem... until there are robust reputation networks, nobody will use a decentralized labor market, and until there is a flourishing market, the WoT won't build beyond "who follows who". In the end-zone, a robust WoT would do WAY more than follows/spam/bots. It's "which npubs say which other npubs are good at performing task X", and other rich attestations that can be gleaned from Other Stuff apps like catallax, https://attestr.app, marketplaces, restaurant review apps, etc.

For instance, your @Nostr Reviews - when things like that are properly GrapeRank-backed, I would expect to be able to find 20 different reviews of X software from 20 different reviewers, and based on what kind of software is being reviewed, and my relationship to that reviewer along that specific context, my "WoT" should help determine who's review is most likely to be valuable to me. ie "I've agreed with Reviewer Y about chat app UIs, but I've disagreed with him about social feed features. I've agreed with Reviewer Z about VPNs." Now when a chat app is reviewed, I'd be inclined towards Reviewer Y, but if the app being reviewed is a social feed, I'd be steered away from him. It's not as simple as "Do I trust Reviewer Y, as a _person_?" or even "Do I think he's a bot?". The context of the attestation matters so much more than those.

This is where a complex service like catallax can come in, especially if it integrates with ratings. Free Agent Jack has completed 15 bounties successfully (he's been paid out, Arbiters and Patrons have closed out the jobs as satisfactory). That alone tells you something about his reliability. But if the bounties are also categorized - 5 were about marketing, 10 were software development - and he got really bad ratings on the marketing ones and on average good ratings on the software development ones, well now you can glean that Jack is a good coder but a shit marketer, even though he's been paid for all of it. ....If you're still reading.. To make matters even wilder: in YOUR GrapeVine's opinion, Arbiter John has terrible judgement about code, while Arbiter Tom knows excellent software. 5 of Jack's super positive "software" reviews are from John, and it turns out that the other 5 are really lukewarm "software" reviews from Tom, who actually knows his shit. So now **you** determine that Jack might not actually be as talented a developer as it seemed, since you consider Tom a code authority and he's never been impressed with Jack (while dumbass John thinks Jack is the greatest). And if by some wild stretch of the imagination you're still with me: Steve's GrapeVine has a very different opinion of Arbiters John and Tom! In Steve's world, everyone says John is a quiet genius and Tom is actually just a loudmouth who has tricked everyone into thinking he's some software guru. So Steve's GrapeVine implies that Jack is actually really talented and appreciated by the true experts (while being misunderstood by the impostors). Same catallax events, same npubs, same job statuses, same payments rendered, same reviews given - but different opinions of the people and services involved, thus entirely opposing worldviews and expectations. **This is the human layer, and this is why it matters for markets and cybereconomies**. Because Human action and individuals' entrepreneurial activities are what create value. ...Eventually, Jack's software makes it out into the world and attempts to thrive for a few years. Does it end up being great or terrible? As this is the ultimate test of any opinions, performance after contact with the real world will actually help determine whether YOUR GrapeVine or Steve's had the better prediction. And real value will accrue accordingly.

So I guess I would argue the situation in which your follow list doesn't have a strong connection to some notion of "trust" is probably a pretty minority user behavior. Because basically what you're saying then is I want to have an information feed full of people whose trust is questionable?