From a theoretical standpoint, this answer could get very long, but the real answer boils down to the creator of the protocol prefers bitcoin.
On the theoretical side, I'd argue that bitcoin PoW is the best choice because it is more resistant to malicious actors. Assuming that a solution to the botting issue requires a small proof-of-work or fee to post, on a PoW chain malicious actors would need to control a large amount of energy inflow and hash power to support their botting operation. Whereas on a PoS chain, they simply needs a large pool of capital to be staked, which would give returns that can support their operation. This means that the attack vector is larger on a PoS chain than a PoW chain. This is also why the nostr protocol itself has a proof-of-work component. It's the simplest solution to two-generals problem.
Proof of work also depends on capital, compute isn't free. In fact, it is already incredibly centralized in the Bitcoin blockchain because there's like 3 big players which have already attacked the Bitcoin Cash blockchain. The only reason these huge pools haven't attacked the Bitcoin blockchain is because they have a financial stake on the price being high, which is also the same incentive proof of stake depends on.
I'd like to point out that the apparent "crypto dominance" is mostly due to that group's propensity to be early-adopters of new technology. The apparent crypto spam is actually a good opportunity to squash the bot issue early. Even people "in crypto" hate bots spamming the newest shitcoin.
So while that may put some people off, there is non-crypto related communication, and the "crypto dominance" will decrease over time.
Wow, this is super cool. As a hobbyist game dev, I really hope to see bevy support soonish, as it has a dedicated community and is also Rust-based. Or rather, a rust crate for whatever rust-based engine wants to use it. Rust-based game engines show a lot of promise so I think the crate would be a worthwhile endeavor
As a pedantic native speaker, I'd like to describe the different interpretations I have for these words. Hopefully this explanation illustrates the differences in a more useful way to you than simple ordering. I am not saying that this is exactly what the summary meant for these words, I'm just adding more context:
- Important: Describes that something has high priority, in a general sense. Very broad. Can replace any of the other terms, but is less precise.
- Key: Important in a utilitarian sense. Just like a literal key, using "key" here implies that something is an essential part of a solution to a problem/issue.
- Vital: Important in an ongoing sense. Think of "vitality"," the capacity to live, grow, or develop. We should use "vital" when we mean something is important to do as a habit, to maintain the strength of something.
- Crucial: Another term that is general. Basically "important" but with higher priority. It implies that there is some urgency, gravity, or necessity to whatever is crucial or the matter to which whatever is crucial.
That's a good point and it illustrates what the solution is too. Email, is a series of protocols: POP3, SMTP and IMAP; thus they don't suffer issues with HTTP (a different protocol) that this article describes. The Web mail apps are just a client to serve your email protocol data to you. While the web apps do suffer from the HTTP issues, you at least have the freedom to switch your clients, and even the servers of your email data.
Yeah, I think nostr is the obvious solution when you realize this article is all about the issues of federating/decentralizing on top of HTTP. The P in HTTP is protocol. So the solution is that we need a different protocol: nostr
Yeah, as far as I can tell, nostr does indeed solve the issues discussed ITT. I think it stems from the fact that nostr is a protocol, just like HTTP. So instead of federating or decentralizing on top of http, we needed a different protocol all-together
On the theoretical side, I'd argue that bitcoin PoW is the best choice because it is more resistant to malicious actors. Assuming that a solution to the botting issue requires a small proof-of-work or fee to post, on a PoW chain malicious actors would need to control a large amount of energy inflow and hash power to support their botting operation. Whereas on a PoS chain, they simply needs a large pool of capital to be staked, which would give returns that can support their operation. This means that the attack vector is larger on a PoS chain than a PoW chain. This is also why the nostr protocol itself has a proof-of-work component. It's the simplest solution to two-generals problem.