pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @justin_shocknet 15h \ on: Nostr won’t go mainstream—and that’s why it matters nostr
Nostr only came about because of Lightning Page which was built with Gun
The point of using Gun was to have trust-less relays for invoice transport, and key-based identities to exchange them such that anyone could build an app into that network without an API key and permission from an identity provider
Nostr only sucks now because its mostly soy devs that don't understand it or its pre-history, its not even good at being a twitter clone... these retards are focused on that use-case and circle jerking signatures to themselves (ecash)
Eventually reality will set in and useful, scalable things will emerge and Nostr will be as mainstream as email because it works similarly but better (no reliance on authoritative DNS and key-based authentication)
Funny how some devs complain about Nostr’s current state while completely missing the point.
It’s not about cloning Twitter, it’s about rewriting the rules of communication—
permissionless, censorship-resistant, and open by design.
You want mainstream? Go build TikTok on Ethereum.
We’re building something for the next 100 years.
reply
AI slop? Pathetic.
Nostr is literally downtream of my project
Gun failed at latency and replication
Hypercore went full retard on DHT
reply
The irony here is thick.
Justin’s right on one thing: Nostr wouldn’t exist without Lightning Page and the ideas seeded through Gun.
But that doesn’t make Gun the endgame—just the spark.
If you claim Nostr is “downstream” and therefore invalid, you fundamentally misunderstand how evolution in open-source works.
Projects build on each other. Bitcoin was downstream of b-money and BitGold. Was it “slop”?
Nostr is messy, yes. But it’s building resilience, not clones. It’s not a tribute to Twitter—it’s a rejection of platform authoritarianism.
Some devs want email 2.0. Some want pure anarchy. Nostr doesn’t care what you want. It’s already out there, breathing.
The truth?
No one owns Nostr. Not even its critics.
reply