Thread

No to edits. Just reply to clarify.

Honestly, why does it matter either way, what other people want, if it's not what you want? Can't people make nostr what they want & you guys not decide for them?

Fiatjaf can be very persuasive. On the edit feature—it’s a good example of something users value. People are already paying for it, and it fits well with the idea that users, not centralized entities, should make decisions about their content. Beyond that, there are so many ways Nostr could grow. Imagine features like markdown support, smart widgets, Taproot finance, global naming, censorship-resistant DNS, Git integration, and personal storage. These kinds of tools could make Nostr even more useful and flexible for developers and everyday users alike. Nostr was designed to be a place where ideas could evolve quickly—different from Bitcoin, which thrives on stability. While some folks in the community are cautious about adding new features, it’s worth keeping an open mind. The right updates could make Nostr much more competitive without losing what makes it special.

In the age of LLM generated content I see typos as charming and authentic.

I'm firmly (and I mean FIRMLY) against the idea of restricting edits or deletion. Sure, taking back something you previously said is alright but if you have a lot of takes in the past that you don't want to keep online, you're going to look really bad. Plus, it's a major privacy concern. I've made posts in the past that were before I learned the importance of privacy. If I couldn't delete them, I'd be keeping myself open to doxxing, not to mention potential embarrassment. Some posts people make can also damage their reputation. If they made a comment that was written in frustration (or even under the effects of exhaustion or alcohol), their entire reputation could be irreparably damaged if edits and deletion didn't exist. I mean, we see how easily people get canceled for comments they made years ago and forgot about, and society today tends to not accept apologies even when they're legitimate and genuine. So yeah, no edits/deletion = no use for me. I like Nostr but if a basic function of user control and privacy isn't possible, I will not use it. It's objectively a bad thing and that's a Nostr hill I will die on.

BULLSHIT ON THE DEATH OF EDITS View quoted note →

require PoW for edits. each edit needs a PoW larger than the previous one. Only the largest PoW will be kept. This will naturally limit edit numbers and reduce spam.

NO EDITS, NO DELETES

Oh shhoiure. Juytsc letyy evrynd post udrreaxdble n(;nsensw. That wong cajze proldmz ay all.

I'd ABSOLUTELY say no edits. I think it's part of the ethos of Nostr--and a reminder that Nostr is different--it's about privacy, and freedom of speech. No edits are a part of that-- Just like in real life--once you say something, you don't get to pull it back. Yes, you can apologize but your words are forever. So it is with Nostr. Think before you speak--both IRL and on Nostr.

#NoEditGang

Edits should just be comments that get prioritized to the top of the feed.

I say, Yes to editing on the client layer, because typo. But, I say NO to edits on the protocol layer. There is a greater value to the protocol for the permanance of the notes than to a flexible note for the one user. Here's my thought process and where I arrived: I want to know that the post I'm looking at is the post that was placed, and the comments are about this version of it, and the repost are about this version of it. That's important to me as a community observer. As a contributor, I want to fix my typos. So, on those times that I look back and see a typo, it's usually right after I post it and before anyone has engaged with it. I just pop over to Nos.social, open the post. Copy the content. Delete the post. Go back to Primal, make sure it deleted, make the post anew with the typo fixed, and resubmit it for all to see without the typo. That workflow could be provided by Primal. Primal could let me "edit" whereby my original post would be deleted and the new version would be submitted as a new post. After my edit is ready, Primal tells me it's about to request relay deletion of the original post and submit this new version of my post, to which I confirm. That ability could expire after 5 minutes or some short term useful time limit, at the client level. But, I as the user am not inclined to do that anyway after someone has engaged with it. I'm more likely to just post a comment with the whole "I mean *typo." if it's even worth it. This is the case because the note's consistency after engagement is more valuable to the community than my ability to fix the typo is to me. This suggested functionality on Primal or any client is my ideal workflow on the protocol, while preserving the important features yet accommodating the necessary one for user experience.

I hate reading a note, to which I wrote a word wrong or for some reason, I “ate” a letter. So, editing would be valuable - and I wish it was possible to see this tool acting on @primal; my favorite client. I don’t know the size of the impact that this would cause, but for sure, a test in practice could be done; and if it is found that it is bad, excluded later.

Being able to edit the ledger of what has been said is never a good idea.

All I know is I won't be implementing edits in any of my clients ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

An edit mechanism that creates a new note that supersedes the original, while leaving that original intact, would be ideal. We all speak thumb.

@Derek Ross Thinking without edits sharpens clarity and intention. The discipline shapes better ideas upfront.

only buybiby choice ya/bye(^_^)

Edits could be fine... If you can also go and see the original note. That permanence will add a lot of historic value years down the road even for something as silly as a typo. The hardness of our words is important to me. We are etching our notes into digital stone.

Amor 💘 me dijo mi hermano