Well, I'm just now learning about this, but it appears to me whoever controls the coordinator for a group can kill the group. Not so with nostr relays.
I can run my own mumble server, therefore its decentralized? No. Thats not what "decentralized" means. If the coordinator can be swapped out at any time without fucking up the group, it's decentralized. Otherwise it isnt. Relays can be swapped out any time without messing up anything for the user, you can have redundancy in relays. Is that true for cordn coordinators? If not, its centralized. Simple as.
Replies (2)
Sure, but it is my group. Of course I can kill it. That doesn't make it any more or less decentralized. None of the groups are permissionless, either. You have to have a creator of a group. They don't just pop into existence on their own. So.... I don't get the complaint.
If I invite you to a party at my house, I get to control thy guest list, unless I allow other guests to bring their friends.
But I'm still at my place. I'm not in a commie block house, assigned by a central administration.
Does that make any more sense?
Yes, but if you have a party at *my* house, you can send everyone home or I can do it without your permission.
You assume that the common architecture of this is going to involve a room creator running a coordinator. That is most certainly not what the network architecture is going to look like.
