Maybe I’m missing something but I fail to see how Nostr can be censorship resistant in any non-trivial way.
Sure. It is an open standard that allows for easy migration between service providers — and that is good.
But that doesn’t mean it’s censorship resistant. For starters there is no general way to detect censorship!
Unless you already know a message exists you can’t see any evidence it was censored!
For “censorship-resistance” to work you have to *assume* specific market conditions.
…
I think you're missing that "censorship resistant" doesn't mean "censorship proof."
Glancing at the project, it does seem to provide additional ways to resist censorship. Exactly as claimed.
Yep, it's still subject to censorship through various means, but that doesn't mean it doesn't resist censorship.
That’s not what I’m saying.
Bitcoin doesn’t make censorship impossible— but it has clear limits on the sorts of resources a censor needs (a huge share of the hash rate).
Bitcoin also allows for detecting evidence of censorship as a drop in hash rate.
Nostr doesn’t have any clear benefit like these.
Please note there isn’t a universally accepted definition of Censorship Resistance — but it usually refers to must stronger guarantee than anything Nostr offers.
…
So if there isn't a universally accepted definition of Censorship Resistance, you're being awfully definitive in saying Nostr doesn't offer it :)
It looks like Nostr provides alternative ways of accessing content, routing around points of potential censorship, along with built in methods for automatically routing as more relays are added.
You might not personally think that's enough resistance for your own comfort, but it IS resistance to censorship.
It does have some value, whether you think it's a great value or a small value.
Well obviously all **don't** agree on the things that are CR since you and I apparently disagree!
Since Nostr has those features that absolutely resist censorship, I thing it's completely correct and unconfusing to call it censorship resistant.
It's a straightforward way to describe something that has such features to resist censorship.
What I’m saying is exactly that it doesn’t have features to resist censorship.
It has useful features that are unrelated to resisting censorship.
But you can call it whatever you want.
And I can point out you’re wrong.
Yes, you keep saying it doesn't have features to resist censorship after having yourself mentioned the features to resist censorship :)
You're talking in circles, man.
@volkris
The fact there isn’t a universally agreed formal definition of “censorship resistance” doesn’t mean it is a meaningless phrase and you can’t discuss whether something is or isn’t censorship resistant.
There are things that all agree are CR and they are nothing like Nostr.
Otherwise I could equally claim Twitter is now CR bc Musk claims to be against censorship.
My point is that Nostr *does* offer benefits, but calling it “censorship resistance” is incorrect and confusing.