Sphinx chat is based on lightning network. Messages routed together with the lightning payment.
Nostr protocol is based on relays and clients.
312 sats \ 0 replies \ @BeardedSaintRef 13 Apr 2023
Not even comparable…Nostr takes the cake
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Majjin 13 Apr 2023
I think NOSTR is better. Lightning should be for payments, not messaging. It's an interesting proof of concept/experiment though!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @crybaby 13 Apr 2023
Sphinx is kind of a side project of a tool of necessity for Stakwork so its rather limited in scope compared to the wild west of nostr, the wild openness of nostr is its value, im not that interested in the twitter clones on it though which is where most of the energy is right now
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @l0k18 13 Apr 2023
Nostr is something like IPFS but not based on a filesystem mapping, instead it's an account/post/comment event distrtibution network, where IPFS is a... well... filesystem.
If it doesn't cost routing fees to send Sphinx messages it's a good thing it's not popular.
If it does cost fees to route messages, then all we need is more people to run sphinx capable LN nodes and they can spend the sats they earn and cost goes to near zero. The network benefits from a lack of spam, due to the economics of its pay to play game system mechanics.
If you could get paid to relay people's messages, why stop at instant messages, why not have long form and forums as well.
One of the goals of Indra is to do exactly this, not only anonymising but also monetising content delivery, and with mechanisms like prisms, to pay content creators and content hosters from the service access fees.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @astronaut 13 Apr 2023
Does anyone use Sphinx? I don't know anyone who uses it.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @tomlaies 13 Apr 2023
About a year ago when I was telling everybody about SN lots of people answered "so like Sphinx?"
-.-
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @random_ 13 Apr 2023
They both solve different problems.
Sphinx solves spam.
Nostr solves social media interoperability.
reply