So if forces wanted to shut down a repo they could query nostr for the current set of servers recommended by the pubkeys whom they assume to be the maintainers.
The repo could then be set up again on a different set of servers and the locations published via events. Until those get shut down again etc. etc., effectively playing cat and mouse.
In other words, yes there is the one authoritative server, or set of servers with redundant identical content via replication, but it's too short-lived to be a viable target.
Replies (3)
Doesnt this same critque apply to censorship resistant nature of social media on nostr? But with git servers rather than nostr relays? I suppose its harder to query git servers for whether they are storing a user's repository.
In that scenario the maintainers could point to onion addresses which are harder to shut down?
> I suppose its harder to query git servers for whether they are storing a user's repository.
You should be able to query a server for "all repos signed by public key X" the same way you can query a nostr relay for "all events signed by public key X".
But on nostr relays can just store your events without your involvement. A relay can mirror another one just by pulling events off of it.
Your git server idea requires going back to the maintainer for each new server, the maintainer has to approve each new git server with a signed event that needs to be broadcast. So there's a bottleneck there.
Maybe ngit can be augmented with an element of discovery. Where basically the user tells it to find a repo just identified by a certain public key, and give it a list of servers to try.
That would make it very nostr like.
