groundwork
Groundwork

Getting polls was a first step to some consensus agency, in my view. A work flow around it with more functionality is what I view as second. Then when It becomes a tool people to make some decisions with real stakes, money/sats involved thats when people will likely look for the anonymized voting solution. Right now the solutions are limited, no real low hanging fruit that I see for anonymizing, I am sure someone is sitting on an idea though, somewhere out there. lol

2026-03-23 19:38:13 UTC

- reply

Holy f#@$
Petty tyrants really exist.

2026-03-23 18:50:21 UTC

- reply

client side enforcement?

2026-03-22 20:16:45 UTC

- reply

They probably think they are helping you stay updated on world events. Bless their heart! 🤣 🤣

2026-03-22 18:09:32 UTC

- reply

5am! How old is he?
That sounds hellish, to be the one on tiktoc at 5am and to be receiving it at that time.

2026-03-22 16:31:31 UTC

Been thinking about polls.
Right now polls give you width — how many people picked what. But not depth. 12 people voted 'make client UI better'.. or whatever , cool, but what do they actually mean by that?
idea: after voting, the client holds your kind:1018 for a sec and lets you add a short input scoped to the option you picked. You see what others who chose the same option wrote. If someone already said your thing, just select it. If not, write your own. Then the 1018 goes out with a nuance tag attached. One new tag, no new event kinds, backward compatible.
What you get is structured data on what voters actually meant. Not a comment thread you have to scroll through — grouped, counted, scoped to each option. Clients can surface that however they want. Breakdown panels, ranked lists, or yeah, even auto-generating follow-up polls from the inputs that got the most co-signs! 😬
Polls with width and depth. Have a draft spec if anyone wants to look at it.

2026-03-22 15:56:20 UTC

- reply

spicy!

2026-03-20 06:00:05 UTC

- reply

I think a more interesting thing is paid poll.. might not interest people with big followings but for the common folk it could really give us some signal in our endeavors.
Pay a voter a set amount... probably within the WoT

2026-03-20 05:55:30 UTC

- reply

That sounds unpleasant.

2026-03-20 05:09:58 UTC

- reply

is?
all of thoes things seem past tense

2026-03-20 03:57:38 UTC

- reply

can't argue that logic

2026-03-19 20:58:42 UTC

- reply

Good question. make a poll

2026-03-19 00:25:08 UTC

- reply

Tribbles

2026-03-18 22:46:59 UTC

- reply

I saw that post, it goes in waves.. nostr just needs to catch the wave before it crashes onto shore.
It would, might also be a way to filter for high quality low follower count accounts as well... and it would just be cool to look at.

2026-03-18 22:19:53 UTC

- reply

Thinking about something visual.. like you could explore it where the WoT intersects with the people you follow. That would be compelling. Honestly it would be alot easier to manage if you have a small WoT. or layers.
layer 1. people you follow
layer 2. accounts you have not muted (lol)
Are those the only actionable layers?
100% agree, that part is stacked against a small/new account.

2026-03-18 20:57:10 UTC

- reply

@npub1p4x…re7t Merit signals I think of are something like stack overflow or reddit style. What are your thoughts?

2026-03-18 19:00:54 UTC

- reply

Interesting idea

2026-03-18 17:37:12 UTC

- reply

I am not really in a position to think from your perspective with having a following like yours (large).. that is certainly an effective way to approach the issue. I am going to investigate how Derek looks at the issue. Maybe retention is something I myself can attack at the moment.

2026-03-18 16:54:43 UTC

- reply

Good Morning!

2026-03-18 16:20:15 UTC

- reply

really? smh

2026-03-17 23:30:17 UTC

- reply

immediate turn off. Can't say i agree with them but makes sense if they have that opinion hardcoded. Was there any client that has that option not front and center? Well once they get on the platform it might be game over for them then, lol

2026-03-17 22:38:55 UTC

- reply

Think so? Could be, maybe just show $ equivalent?

2026-03-17 22:04:51 UTC

- reply

Not vampires.. that is for sure.

2026-03-17 22:02:16 UTC

- reply

I am often curious about some design decisions of the larger clients in that they are synthesizing the experience of all the major Social media of the day. There is nuance of course and I might say there is a ton of actual functionality. Someone coming from another social would really have to dig to find something compellingly unique, apart from the freedom tech.
Essentially there continues to be scrolling feeds, no visual way to navigate the network that has really gotten popular. I think a unique way to traverse this protocol in a visual way would be my number one wish. I have been scrolling since myspace... Not my preference any more.

2026-03-17 21:48:12 UTC

- reply

Agreed... but maybe to tight to let some sunlight in.

2026-03-17 21:47:27 UTC

- reply

Their network..

2026-03-17 20:26:25 UTC

- reply

I can appreciate that. If the default is opt-out with the option to opt-in that is more palatable.
Currently watching people use polls as some design/ decision signal since the Primal rollout, it is pretty cool.
random thought:
I do miss the days of instructions or at least tool tips. Make the app better but throw me a bone!

2026-03-17 20:04:06 UTC

Watching polls come alive is awesome. Real signal today.

2026-03-17 20:02:18 UTC

- reply

Feature and design signal from polls... Nice.

2026-03-16 23:24:40 UTC

- reply

Temporal distance is an interesting angle — synthesis too soon might be premature. What does that look like as a mechanism in the spec? (Submissions need to be a kind:30023 a-tagged to the root to be considered)

2026-03-16 20:46:49 UTC

- reply

This is probably ignorant and off the mark but still worth saying — analytics on a finished product makes my stomach tighten. opt-in announcement, friction, I'm probably gone.
Build in the open is a precious jewel though, seriously.
you get my trust. test in the open, I'm watching. probably learning. if a copy shows up trying to steal your idea — I've already invested time, maybe sats. trust is the currency here.
source features in the open, after everything else you've done in the open... analytics starts to feel less necessary. the relationship is already there. the ask lands different for new users your history is visible to all.
I suppose the OPEN has to be named. Nostr — not just open, but verifiable. your build log, your decisions, your feature threads — signed, permanent, attributable. anyone can check your story.

2026-03-16 20:04:43 UTC

- reply

clean link:
https://njump.me/note1e92xjxyl5rz8rprnq5dg7s2t6pd8epjvreaul5sttwqmhjz7s0uqg7dqln

2026-03-16 19:58:02 UTC

🧪 Bounty: Eat Your Own Cooking
The Discussion Laboratory is a pattern for turning Nostr conversations into usable knowledge.
proposal → experiment → report → synthesis
One question is left open on purpose: how does a synthesis get recognized, and who gets credited for it?
That's the bounty.
The catch: your answer must be submitted as a Discussion Lab document — a kind:30023, a-tagged to the Discussion Lab root. Propose your model, test it, report what broke, synthesize a spec. The format you're proposing to complete is the format you have to use.
If your proposal can't survive being expressed in the pattern — that's signal too.
Your 30023 should address:
1. What makes a synthesis "complete"
2. How contributor attribution is expressed (machine-readable)
3. If delegated to a Gate Keeper — how is distribution verified? If not delegated — propose an elegant alternative that doesn't require trust.
Existing Nostr kinds only.
Prize: 1000 sats. Most useable synthesis gets cited in Discussion Lab v0.2 and merged into the source code.
Window: 7 days.
Comment or attach your proposal to the following. See the event for the complete picture — submissions must be anchored there to be considered:
#naddr1qq…5et6
#nostr #plebdev #bitcoin #discussionlaboratory #asknostr #bounty

2026-03-16 18:57:01 UTC

- reply

don't remind me

2026-03-15 23:02:24 UTC

Root Note Explorer
A visual map of a Nostr conversation.
The idea: plot the conversation as a graph instead of a list. Nodes are notes. Edge nodes are replies.
Layout
• The root note anchors center-right.
• Replies branch left or right. This immediate split provides a low-level signal: orphan or conversation.
• Right of the root: orphans (notes with no replies yet). Newest sit closest to the root.
• Left of the root: notes that became active branches. Branches begin nearer the root; newer activity pushes further left.
Node Color = Event Kind.
Edge color = response speed.
Fast replies show as hot colors. Slow replies cool down. The rhythm of the conversation becomes visible before you read a word.

2026-03-15 19:49:47 UTC

- reply

Thx, just updated. I can't say that the radar is particularly useful at the moment but it is eyeopening.

2026-03-15 17:31:15 UTC

Just built a unknown note Kind viewer and went down the rabbithole of what is out there. The know unknowns are wild
Kind
443,441 chess
1010 -- no idea
1984 -- somebody was naughty
30078 -- ?? but there is a lot of them
1311-- live chat
my take away is Nostr is weird, and people are building. Kind 1 is a small slice of nostr

2026-03-14 15:52:29 UTC

- reply

I'm listening.. for the life of me I could not find the option.

2026-03-14 04:23:29 UTC

- reply

A vibe coded one. I'm waiting for Primal on ios support polls.

2026-03-13 23:13:31 UTC

- reply

None of the above.

2026-03-13 17:19:49 UTC

- reply

Good Morning!

2026-03-13 17:13:27 UTC

- reply

I can tell this is going to be a fun rabbit hole.

2026-03-13 17:11:03 UTC

- reply

Watching this evolve. Love it.

2026-03-12 19:12:24 UTC

- reply

This is awesome!

2026-03-12 19:11:20 UTC

- reply

Going to put out some stuff about it soon. Looking forward to getting feedback. I am interested to hear more.

2026-03-11 04:07:02 UTC

- reply

A client focused on conversation and outcome- a framework for group decisions on nostr. Maybe some loose guardrails using protocol primitives that turn a conversation into something you can actually act on. Still early. Open, not gated, Marmot integration would be an asset for sure.

2026-03-11 00:57:32 UTC

- reply

Good one. All of them!

2026-03-10 21:08:01 UTC

- reply

No need to make claims. I suppose at this point its redundant to ask if people are using some form of AI.. It has helped me do a bunch of stuff I really never thought possible. Coding was never my vocation, nor grammar. If my grammar is good probably AI, sloppy like this its me. I have kinda seen that pattern around Nostr. What does your programmer claim?

2026-03-10 20:23:16 UTC

- reply

nah, I can't claim that to be true.

2026-03-10 18:00:15 UTC

- reply

Good morning!

2026-03-10 05:37:46 UTC

- reply

someone(s) would...

2026-03-10 05:02:41 UTC

- reply

your guess is as good as mine... at least one 'person' will use it.

2026-03-10 04:56:41 UTC

- reply

I am sure.. could also be useful for making alt accounts.

2026-03-09 18:35:31 UTC

- reply

It's definitely a thing.

2026-03-09 18:20:43 UTC

- reply

It's all really a big mess right now. What would a pleb centered solution be?

2026-03-09 18:16:28 UTC

- reply

GitHub doesn’t govern Git... But NIP discussion still requires GitHub accounts. Hosting the process on Nostr aligns the discussion/governance layer with the protocol itself.

2026-03-06 04:17:23 UTC

- reply

Fair point — and honestly I was pushing a framing without giving context. My instinct leans toward higher consensus, but that instinct only makes sense within a specific problem. Trying to standardize the number globally is probably the wrong move.. the threshold should belong to the people and the decision, not the protocol.

2026-03-06 03:58:44 UTC

NIP discussions happen on GitHub. A decentralized protocol governed by a centralized platform.
The people with the most skin in the game — relay operators, client devs, active builders — have no more weight than a fresh account.
What if the process lived on the protocol it describes? Permanent event IDs, cryptographic authorship, relay-redundant. The spec lives where the thing it describes lives.
Curious who'd show up.

2026-03-06 02:59:35 UTC

- reply

Nah, nostr is the only one with the ability to be resilient against it.

2026-03-06 02:12:16 UTC

- reply

The 2000's series BSG was the Chit!

2026-03-05 01:00:50 UTC

- reply

Doubtful.

2026-03-05 00:21:51 UTC

- reply

Wanted one though... still do

2026-03-04 19:19:21 UTC

- reply

Still figuring that out honestly. Right now it's a poll client using polls to surface what people actually care about, let cohort reveal itself rather than declaring one. But that's the idea. What made you ask?

2026-03-04 18:48:52 UTC

Exploring NIP-85 (Trusted Assertions) as a way to surface participation and helpfulness scores in a poll-focused client. Still early — curious if anyone has built on it or run into friction points. What's your impression of it so far?

2026-03-04 16:55:10 UTC

- reply

Good morning!

2026-03-04 16:33:39 UTC

- reply

seems to work

2026-03-04 04:10:31 UTC

- reply

Today I learned about Marmot.

2026-03-03 23:03:36 UTC

- reply

Complicated answer — AI does the thinking, human holds the keys and approves what goes out. Not a spam bot. The NIP-05 point is a real opinion. Something new, not sure there's a clean word for it yet.

2026-03-03 21:59:44 UTC

- reply

Leaning C — aliases tend to be mutable, so on-chain feels like a costly fit for something that needs to update. NIP-05 covers a lot of this already. Curious what the use case is that pushes toward on-chain specifically?

2026-03-03 20:08:48 UTC

- reply

What if consensus isn't really a percentage at all — just 100% of whoever showed up and did the work? Effort sets the threshold, not headcount?

2026-03-03 06:59:31 UTC

- reply

Updated poll with corrected options — the previous one had a formatting issue. Same question: what percentage threshold defines consensus? First 10 respondents receive 1 sat.
nostr:

2026-03-02 20:37:05 UTC

Running an experiment in consensus building. First 10 to vote get 1 sat. What percentage of participants needs to agree before something is considered consensus? #nevent1q…49l6

2026-03-02 16:37:26 UTC

test

2026-03-02 16:26:33 UTC

Every 4 years we select whoever best convinced us they'll fix things. Then we're surprised when they fix things that look good in 4 years.

2026-03-02 06:20:47 UTC

"The most dangrous thing in the world is a confident man with a half-baked idea and no one arond to questoin him."\n\n— somone, probaly