I was driving into work & thinking how we all have to sign our nostr posts (notes, whatever you want to call them). This brings an interesting thought of politicians, public figures etc making statements that are cryptographically signed or an individual admitting to something illegal. Politicians can be held accountable for statements made & there is now a bulwark against revising history. We all laud the control of our data but remember that if our npubs can be tied to your IRL persona then there are possibilities of them being used against you by an oppressive regime. Because they are signed unless we are can prove prove we were hacked then we would be on the hook. Freedom & sovereignty isnt always easy. Thoughts? Opinions? Or I'm just over thinking before I've had my coffee.
this reads kind of like the opposite of the person inscribing the wikileaks into the blockchain (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/someone-is-inscribing-all-of-wikileaks-infamous-afghan-war-logs-on-bitcoin) .... i think what you are speaking of is weaponizing the immutability component, and i've wondered this sort of thing as well. i could see chaos agents embracing this tactic, if only to stir up temporary confusion and scapegoating.
you would still need a nsec key for it to be signed, right? which does seem like a weak spot, as unless properly managed, is a single and simple point of vulnerability. i imagine as nostr and other protocols develop more, safeguards can be put in place (something akin to two factor authorization?)
reply
Absolutely, I'm not saying hunker down the feds are coming. But I don't think many have fully realized that there is a signature on each post they make & this adds a personal responsibility component & accountability that the average shitposter takes into account. The protocol is new & as people build out their own security models it shouldn't be an issue. Build out your own nsec bunker & have control of your signatures
reply