ElectronicMonkey

Introducing Pocket Wallet and how I think about Web5

ElectronicMonkey — Wed, 14 May 2025 01:53:11 GMT

Pocket Wallet is a experimental nostr-based wallet on CKB blockchain built for pocket change and casual, low-stakes transactions. It uses CKB Light Client to sync the blockchain right in your browser without relying on any centralized RPC service. By integrating Nostr with Nip46 and more, Pocket Wallet hopes to provide a fully verifiable wallet experience in the methodology of client-side-validation and POW verifications. The software is also open-source, right now it only supports testnet, any feedback is welcome.

This is also an self attempt to build a Web5 product from zero and explore the design and implementation of a Web5 idealism. The things i find interesting along side building this demo are quite a few, just pick some to share:

I think users and developers all want something that can last without requiring extra hardship, approval or permissions in the future.
For developers, what i mean by that is when building Web5 products, we should think about the maintain problem. to make a product works in the longer future, you want it relies on fewer dependencies.
Server is bad because it relies on other people’s computer. Client side validation is good because the computer is in your own control.
That is why light client and POW matters to blockchain since they give you the power to verify by yourself instead of trusting others. Don’t trust, verify is not just a slogan, it is also a practical strategy if you look at it in the long term. Centralized service always feels great at the beginning and then it mess you up in the future.
If you really have to rely on some sort of service, choose the simple and open protocol one instead of the proprietary software. One example in Pocket wallet is the usage of Nip46 to manage the Nostr account. The great thing about Nip46 is that it is dead simple and you can easily host your own if all the Nip46 service providers are down or kicking you out.
In fact, I think all service/products in Nostr ecosystem are easily switchable, replaceable and can be self-hosting since it is a very simple open protocol. That’s why it is chosen in Pocket Wallet as a kind of Web2 User interface connecting with the blockchain web3 stuff(which together builds up the Web5, yes!)
For users, there are power users and weak users. power users can take care of their own but they just don’t have the tools that allows them to do the job. The reason is that power users are considered the minorities in almost all the marketplace. We need more web5 products that move the power and also the responsibility from developers to power users.
For weak users, they can take care of their own but they just keep being told that they can’t and they fall for it. Being able to verify and control the software one is using is a key difference. One simple example is that do you allow a Nostr account manager (either it is Nip46 or Nip07) to automatically approve signing most events for you or do you check every operation by yourself with a high security policy? Automatically signing are always dangerous when comes to manage crypto funds.
Web5 implements different level of trust and opens access to different level of verifiable tools and resource. Only in this way power users can fulfill their wants while weak users have a chance to realize the lies of custody. We need web5 to bring individual sovereign.

区块链应该用来做什么——链上资产的特征与分类

ElectronicMonkey — Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:02:16 GMT

“区块链行业究竟是在做什么？”——这个问题我到现在还没有想得很清楚。谈论起来可以说很多东西，“确权”、“让每一个比特都有了稀缺性”、“数字黄金”、“点对点支付”，但是具体到了行业落地，又容易陷入“赌场”这个有点乌烟瘴气的现实。

但我想有一点是比较明确的，那就是区块链行业肯定是一个围绕资产的行业。这些资产又跟传统的资产很不一样，最简单的特征是它们都是一个个的代币，通过自动化和可验证的代码铸造、控制，我们可以统称为链上资产。从比特币、以太坊到现在，这中间不管过去了多少不同的周期和浪潮，核心不变的都是出现新一轮受追捧的资产。

既然区块链是关于链上资产的行业，那么最重要的是未来会出现什么新的资产，有什么样的新资产会上链。要回答这个问题，又要我们回过头去看看，从行业诞生至今，区块链留下了哪些有意义的、没意义的，有价值的、没价值的资产。

因此，有必要讨论一下链上资产的分类。

链上资产的种类很多，但总体上我觉得可以按**满足需求的不同，**做一些功能性的划分。同时，抛开去中心化、抗审查等等大词，链上资产与传统资产最重要的区别可以认为是安全性的来源。传统资产在传统的社会系统和金融系统中产生，而链上资产是通过可验证代码控制的，所以它的安全性的依赖很清晰，要比现实世界简单很多。

在不同的区块链系统中，使用不同的技术（比如POW/POS），设置不同的规则，拥有不同的治理机制，都会影响安全性。“安全性”和“满足什么样的需求”之间既不是正交的，也不是完全耦合的。在不同层级的安全性之下，可能都会出现满足某一类相同需求的产品，用户使用哪种产品，只取决于自己的风险偏好。另一方面，有些需求只可能在某些特定的安全性保障下才能得到满足，比如跨国际的全球化的抗通胀价值存储。

这篇文章只讨论一些比较简单的分类，可以假设在不同的安全性保障下，每个分类都有可能出现对应的产品。有些安全性是产品内生功能的一部分，有些则完全不影响。同时，这些分类也完全是主观的看法，不一定正确，我所希望的是引发更多对资产进行讨论。

核心资产（高安全性、强需求支撑）

比特币（BTC）
- 核心价值：全球化抗通胀、抗审查的“数字黄金”。
- 长期逻辑：全球法币超发背景下，BTC作为去中心化硬通货的需求不可替代。

这是整个行业最重要的资产。也是整个行业最核心的东西。在这个定位下，只会有一个赢者通吃。其他试图竞争的都很难生存下来。它对安全性的要求也是最高的。

经过验证的资产分类

这部分的资产可以认为是行业诞生至今，已经经过验证的、满足某真实需求、会长期存在的资产。

代表优质项目的资产（股票/ICO代币/治理代币等）
- 核心价值：类似于传统金融世界里的一级市场和二级市场。所谓的“优质”也不一定需要真实落地，可能是叙事/故事驱动，也可能有真实的现金流，但重要的是它能在市场上吸引人买卖。
- 关键指标：团队是否持续营销和建设？生态是否增长？项目是否解决实际问题？
DeFi 资产
- 核心价值：链上金融系统的“基础设施工具”。
- 需求来源：对套利、链上资产理财的需求会永远存在。
Meme币
- 核心价值：营销驱动+投机需求的结合体。
- 长期存在性：人性对暴富故事的追逐不会消失（如Pump.fun、SHIB）。
稳定币
- 核心价值：加密货币世界的“支付货币”。
- 需求刚性：交易媒介、避险工具、跨境支付（如USDT、USDC）。

在不同的安全性保障下，上面这些资产大部分都会有对应的产品。

比如稳定币在安全性上可以有中心化的 USDT ，也有去中心化的算法稳定币。理论上，安全性对稳定币是非常重要的。但现实中，“流动性”可能才是给用户传达“这东西到底安不安全“的产品特点，也是比较主要的竞争点。

Meme 则完全不需要安全性，所以对创业者来说在哪里做都差不多。哪里用户更多就适合去哪里。有时，安全性反而是它的阻碍。DeFi 的话，因人而异。安全性高低是否影响用户使用，完全取决于用户自己的风险偏好。

还未经过验证的资产（需求可能存在）

NFT（收藏品）？
艺术、身份标识、游戏道具的数字化载体，但流动性差、炒作属性也不见得有 Meme 这么强。会长期存在吗？打个问号。
DAO（准入/治理代币）？
去中心化组织的准入权/管理权通证，依赖 DAO 本身的价值和实际治理参与度决定的价值。DeFi DAO 可能是唯一一个有点发展的方向，其他还非常不成熟，有待验证。
RWA（真实世界资产代币化）？
房产、债券等上链，需要解决法律合规与链下资产映射问题。不确定。
社交/游戏/内容资产
用户数据所有权货币化，还没有像样的有一些用户的产品，就更不用提形成规模经济了。
AI 相关的资产？
是一个变数。如果未来会有成千上万的 AI 智能体与人类共存，链上是承载他们经济系统最合适的基础设施，这里会产生什么新的资产类型？值得期待。

这里面的资产类型，很多还没有找到真实的需求，至少没有经过验证。所以长期来看它们会是区块链行业的方向吗，需要打很多问号。既然需求本身没有得到验证，那么谈安全性对它们的影响，就更加无从谈起了。

当然，这里其实还有一个更有意思的部分，可以多聊一些。也就是**共同知识（法律/合同/规则/代码）**这一类资产。

在应用层，共同知识尚未有代币化的尝试，也难以对其具体价值做定量分析。但如果要说有的实践，以太坊通过交易收取 gas 费和 CKB 通过 Cell 存储状态收取“押金”算是一种在底层的 generalize 的尝试。这种尝试是定量的，可验证的。

以太坊的问题是经济模型不 make sense 导致状态爆炸，ckb 相比是更简单、更明确的。但这里的问题变成了，公链需要通过区块空间的竞争来展示这一种需求是否真的成立。区块空间越紧张，需求就越大。同时安全性越高，对共同知识的保障就越强，也会体现区块空间的价值。

但另一方面，是否有开发者在上面开发应用，会更大的影响这一点。因此开发工具、开发者生态在现阶段可能更重要。

最后

写到这里，发现很多资产似乎又是老生常谈。但从满足需求和安全性两个角度来思考，算是追本溯源的尝试。现在我们面临的处境是，问题还是老的问题，答案是否有新的答案，期待更多讨论。

为什么需要系统化写作

ElectronicMonkey — Sun, 30 Jun 2024 08:52:29 GMT

图文内容发展到今天，大众传媒阵地失守，全部流失到短视频平台上，已经是一个不争的事实了。

自从有了互联网之后，图文内容可能只有两个半的巅峰，一个是博客时代，一个是公众号时代，还有半个是今日头条。这两个半合起来的时间也实在短的可怜，前后不过十余年。

起初人们疾呼纸质书消亡，到现在疾呼文字内容本身的消亡，短视频成了一种新的毒品。不过如果乐观一点的想，印刷机诞生至今五百多年，仍然有许多人和我一样，习惯在某些空闲里捧一本纸书，读一读，而不一定是刷手机看电视，这不能不说印刷机对个体的文明的塑造，依然发挥着重要的作用。

互联网应该也是一样。只是我想短视频无非证明了一件事，那就是图文内容最早提倡的碎片化阅读是不成立的，因为永远有更碎片的内容出现，一开始是视频，后来是15秒短视频，到现在还有长按可以加速的短视频——任何再碎片的图文内容，哪怕是140字的微博，也实在很难抗衡。但反过来说，在越来越碎片化的环境里，长文和书籍也许反而会显露出一种更难得的可贵。系统越是把人压成单一的线条，人性越是希望反弹，寻找多样性的形状。

所以应当提倡系统化的写作。博客一样的、零散的、随机的短篇已经没有太多意义了——这个本来就没法挣钱，原本是挣个人气，现在是免费送给用户都不要了，他们只想要更刺激的短视频，所以对生产者和消费者来说，这个事情都不成立了——不如好好发挥图文内容的优势，生产更复杂的、更有层次的内容。文字对思维的抽象性、灵活性，证明了它的表达力要比视频强出许多——这是为什么今天复杂的知识和教材仍然以文字载体为主——这也是我所提倡的系统化写作所应该追求的。

通过这样的写作，消费者愿意为一定分量的内容付费，生产者也不需要每时每刻想着怎么吸引用户——书的内容慢慢会变成像拍电影、拍电视剧那样的模式。在这种模式下，主流人群仍然每天只会刷短视频，但写文字的作者可以不必去抱怨抢不到注意力，只要闷着头写下去，把长文写好、写足，到了作品完成上市时，制造出一个短期的影响，就足够了。电影不也是一拍两三年，然后上映一个月，上映时人人知道，人人讨论，就结束了吗。系统化写作的内容也应当这样。

这是大的背景下为什么我们需要系统化的写作，抛弃碎片化的写作。从个人的角度来看，系统化写作也更符合创作者的本意。写作是高度私人化的，你的所有作品合起来拼凑出了一个完整的自己。你当然不希望这种拼凑仍然是零散的。当我花 600 块钱买了《鲁迅全集》的时候我就意识到了，只要 600 元，就可以把鲁迅这一生有所记载的文字都买下来——这实在是太便宜了——这也实在是了不起，这 20 本沉甸甸的全集，就是鲁迅这一辈子的结果与证明。

朝花夕拾

ElectronicMonkey — Tue, 04 Jun 2024 14:42:20 GMT

我才知道原来《朝花夕拾》中有五篇是鲁迅在厦门的时期写的。其中就有《从百草园到三味书屋》、《父亲的病》这些名篇。鲁迅是在1926年的秋天来到厦大教书。从他的记述上来看，他并不是很喜欢厦门，那时的厦门近乎于一个荒岛，尤其是伙食上总是吃不惯。可能闽南菜对喜欢多加辣子吃油豆腐的鲁迅来说还是太寡淡了。他形容在厦门的时光是“一个人住在厦门的石屋里，对着大海，翻着古书，四近无生人气，心里空空洞洞”，一种寂寥蔓延开来。不过在这种寂寥中他的创作很顺畅，一个月就写完了《朝花夕拾》中的四篇。1926年，算起来差不多是一百年前。有时惊叹于某些人事物经历漫长岁月打磨的质感。一百年过去，仍然能触动人心。

年少时大多喜欢鲁迅的杂文，以为嬉笑怒骂皆成文章，好不痛快。年纪渐长，慢慢就更偏爱鲁迅的散文了。也对他骨子里散发的悲凉有了更深的理解。到了现在，偶尔翻开他的小说集，不再会纠结其中的批判立意或是中心思想，只是单纯欣赏一个虚构的故事，这时反而更多地能读到鲁迅对生活的描写。今天我要说，鲁迅的短篇小说实在是很好，再读一遍仍然是好。三千字以内的短篇，我甚至怀疑没人能超越鲁迅。但是这世界上研究鲁迅的人实在太多，多到无法再谈论鲁迅。于是偶尔翻开他的选集，只当是一次老友重逢。想来这也是一种“朝花夕拾”吧。

——2024年6月4日，于小岛上

读《搅动晚清帝国秩序的力量》

ElectronicMonkey — Sun, 21 Jan 2024 08:28:35 GMT

想象这样一个史实：一群外国人跑到一个古老的东方国度做生意。这个国家历史悠久但蛮横无理，处处刁难这些外国人，于是外国人在当地开设报纸报刊，传播时事新闻，也对这个国家评头论足，甚至鼓动自己的祖国对它发动战争，而这一切就发生在天子脚下，东方古国对此毫不知情。

这本书有意思的地方，就是研究这样一个史实。更准确的说，是研究那些报纸本身。报纸诞生的地方，正是广州。

19世纪为什么一群西方人能够在清政府眼皮底下出报纸，开启在华外报的历史？一个原因是当时基督教徒要传教、外国商馆需要信息，这些外国人有很强烈的动机去印刷和传播新闻；第二，这些报刊主要是用英文、外语报道的，阅读对象主要也是西方在华侨民，中国人看不懂；第三，当时民间出版相对自由，不需要官府审批、也不需要留下刻书的铺号，事实上，从宋代以来并没有对民间印刷出版做过多的限制。

——最后这个原因，现在读起来简直不可思议。

《广州记录报》主要报道当时中国的政治败坏、社会动乱、道德滑坡、司法腐败等等乱象。也有一些流言八卦，比如道光皇帝最小的弟弟和太监通奸遭遇严惩等等。《中国信使报》的风格则更为激进，主要鼓吹的是对华采取强硬武力、促使清政府打开自由贸易大门。出版时间持续20年的《中国丛报》言论相对不那么激进，可能因为其主编是美国的传教士裨治文，他办报初衷是希望借助文化和商业来促使传教事业能在中国推进，另外美国商人当时主要从事正规商业活动，并不参与鸦片的走私贩卖，所以切身利益不像英商那么急迫。

在当时的社会环境下，这些在华外报选定什么议题、做什么类型的报道、用什么样的标准选择内容，这些是书中研究的重点，也是这本书比较有价值的地方。

一方面他们关注在华外商的利益，对清政府现行的通商制度进行批判，认为外国商人在中国遭遇非人待遇，要求谋取更多的权利，另一方面，他们也对研究中国人充满兴趣。他们对当时人口占世界四分之一的这个大国家，对外所表现出的不闻不问、闭关锁国的态度，充满了不理解，因此试图从中国人的历史、文化和国民性入手，去寻找答案。最后得出的结论，大概是中国人充满了傲慢，把外界全部视为野蛮人，而不知自己才是野蛮人。

举比较有代表性的两个持续性的议题的例子。

第一个是《中国丛报》多期刊载了郭士立撰写的《中国沿海航行记》，这个专栏描写了大量的场景化的沿海风俗民情，在郭士立笔下，一路以来遇到的每个中国人，都被他以鲜活的笔触记录下来。这些中国人是什么样子的呢？有好奇心、吃苦耐劳、浑身充满干劲。生活贫困，却仍然抱有身为天朝臣民的优越感，同时也是精神麻木、失去基本良知的一群人。他们多神崇拜又缺乏信仰，渴望财富又缺少冒险精神。他们吸毒、偷盗、纳妾，道德沦丧。

有两处描写，令人不堪入目：

7月17日，在我们靠岸不久，我看到一大群小船包围了我们的商船，船头上都站着女人。我再次警告还留在商船上的船员，一定要压制自己的邪念。然而我的话根本不起作用，我前脚刚刚离开甲板，他们立马无所顾忌。在中国，父母卖女儿做妓女，丈夫卖妻子做妓女，兄长卖妹妹做妓女一他们做这些时，没有丝毫怜悯之心，甚至如禽兽魔鬼般地开心。船员们狂欢着，全然忘记了挨饿的家人，他们看起来焦躁不安、充满淫欲。

在刘公岛不远处与文隔海相望的山东，虽然是孔子的故乡，然而儒家道德训诚却被人们抛弃和践踏，人们提起这位先古圣人时，语气都带看深深的不屑。在这儿，随船的船员们再次被妓女们引诱了，而这些女人是我见过的最肮脏堕落的动物。很快，捉襟见尉的船员们便尝到了苦头，有些船员不仅卖掉了自己的家当，甚至染上了疾病，这时他们才会追悔不迭，却为时已晚一一他们注定不能成为富人。此情此景真是人类的倒退！用不到12岁的女孩满足男人的兽欲，令人作呕发指！

另一个例子，是这些报纸对律劳卑事件的报道，以及因此引发的对“夷”字的研究和讨论。

律劳卑事件大概的经过，是当时英国派一位新的对华商贸总监律劳卑前来广州履职，这次履职和两广总督卢坤起了冲突，最终律劳卑擅自调动英国军舰进入珠江口，炮轰虎门，双方先后交战两次，对中英关系产生了非常大的影响。

而事件起因的冲突，现在看来都是一些文化摩擦：首先当时清政府不允许中国官员和外国人有直接接触，所有的外国人都是通过广州这个口岸当地的行商来作为中介，进行沟通。所以外商和外国官员有什么事情，都需要先找行商传话，清政府官员再对行商作回复，这种沟通方式让律劳卑很不满，他执意要亲自跟广州官方沟通，卢坤则坚决不见。第二，律劳卑当时入广并没有报备，而是从澳门偷偷进来，令卢坤不满。第三，广州官方发布的通告把律劳卑称为“夷目”，本意是外国人首领的意思，随行翻译和《中国丛报》把它翻为“野蛮人的眼睛”，让律劳卑感觉自己和英国女皇遭到了卢坤傲慢的侮辱。而广州官方对此并不知情。

到了鸦片战争爆发前夕，也就是林则徐虎门销烟之时，在华外报们又开始围绕“鸦片贸易本身的合法性”、“清政府严打鸦片贸易”以及“发起打击活动的主要人物林则徐”进行跟踪报道和讨论。此时不同的报纸对鸦片贸易持有不同的看法，有的报纸大肆渲染鸦片对人并无危害，在中国自古就有作为药用，鸦片贸易也只是类似于烈性酒的正当贸易而已。而有的报纸则批判这种言论无耻至极，只是英国商人为了走私鸦片赚取利润的借口罢了。

本书作者认为，在华外报发表的一系列内容，在一定程度上直接影响了历史的进程，促进了英国对华发起鸦片战争。当时英国官方自律劳卑事件之后，对中英关系更多想以“沉默”的态度和中方贸易，不想宣战。但是随着林则徐打击鸦片的行动越来越果断勇猛，在华外报鼓吹对中国宣战的言论就越加激烈，这些报纸不仅成为了在华外商的舆论地，也把报纸发往海外，传播到英国国内，煽动英国官方发起对华战争。

同时，另一种更间接的影响也悄悄种下。在华外报上诞生的、许多对中国人的研究和讨论，通过报纸传到海外，又从海外被翻制成新的内容再次传入到中国。中国国民性（character of the Chinese）作为一个概念被明确提出，源头来自于这里，最早在报纸上就包括了妇女缠足、溺杀女婴、叩头行拜背后的奴性观察等等话题。美国传教士明博恩的专栏《中国人的气质》在1901年被翻译为日文出版，成为日本畅销书。随后梁启超读到了，鲁迅读到了，这些中国的新青年不得不感慨，第一次听到对国民性的批判，是来自于外国人，梁启超说“吾闻而愤之耻之，然反观自身，诚不能不谓然也”。

历史书上的鸦片战争，也许只占了两页书的内容，每个中国人或许都非常熟悉。但从这些在华外报的报纸上重新经历一遍，又是另一件事情。最简单的例子是林则徐。我想起在澳门街头闲逛，在莲峰庙里看见了隔壁有一间小小的林则徐纪念馆，门票只需要5块钱，几乎没人参观，兴致寥寥。虎门销烟时，林则徐为了扩大打击力度，曾邀请了一系列外国商人和西方在华侨民前来观摩，其中就有《中国丛报》的主编裨治文。他亲眼见到了林则徐，并且和他有过交谈，之后在报纸上发表了一篇报道《镇口硝烟》，这篇报道详细记录了林则徐谈话的内容和音容笑貌。这也是少见的来自第一手资料的“现场报道”，对我来说，它比历史书上的林则徐更有冲击力。

在这些报纸中，你可以清楚的看到外国商人和本地居民日常生活中那些细碎的冲突，也可以看到宏观上的英国鸦片走私贸易与清政府禁烟的利益冲突。如果让我重新回顾一下鸦片战争，我的脑海里会浮现出另一个东方版本的《阿凡达》的故事。事实上，卡梅隆想用阿凡达来隐喻美国人对印第安人犯下的暴行，但那故事相比之下，也实在显得太过简单潦草。对于更复杂、更耐人回味的鸦片战争，马克思在1958年的《纽约每日论坛》上发表的文章总结得最好：

1800年，输入中国的鸦片，已经达到2000箱。如果在18世界时期，东印度公司与天朝之间的斗争，同外国商人与中国海关之同的一般爭批具有相同的性质，那么，从19世纪初起，这个斗争就有了完全不同的特征。中国皇帝为了制止自己巨民的自杀行为，既禁止外国输入这种毒品，又禁上中国人吸食这种毒品，而东印度公司却迅速地把在印度种植的鸦片以及向中国私卖鸦片变成自己财政系统不可分割的一部分。半野蛮人维护道德原则，而文明人却以发财的原则来对抗。一个人口基数占人类三分之一的幅员广大的帝国，不顾时势，仍安于现狀，由于被强力排斥于世界联系的体系之外而孤立无依，因此竭力以大朝尽善尽美的幻想来欺骗自己，这样一个帝国终于要在这样一场殊死的决斗中死去。在这场决斗中，陈腐世界的代表是基于道义原则，而最现代的社会的代表却是为了获得贱买贵卖的特杖一一这的确是一种悲剧，甚至诗人的幻想也永远不敢创造出这种离奇的悲剧题材。

Why Nostr is Important: The Freedom from Being Governed by Servers

ElectronicMonkey — Wed, 22 Nov 2023 00:27:03 GMT

Editor's Note: This is the text from my talk at the #Nostraisa HK event. I didn't prepare a PowerPoint presentation in advance; instead, I wrote this article to share my thoughts on social networks. There is also a Chinese version of this post.

My name is Digi Monkey, the author of the Nostr client flycat.club. Flycat is a Nostr client that provides Relay Group Switching, long and short-form notes, community features, JoyId login, Metamask login, and more. Today, I'd like to discuss Nostr from my perspective and why it is crucial in cyberspace.

Back to 1996

I'd like to start with a quote:

"We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."

Some of you may recognize this quote from the _"Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace." _It is from an article written by John Perry Barlow on February 8, 1996, published on the internet. In 1996, the internet was still a relatively new concept, and for reference, the Netscape browser was released in 1994. So, the idea of the internet, or cyberspace, was somewhat vague to people at the time. However, as we can see from the Declaration, it depicted an idealized utopian vision of internet communities with a sense of certainty.

In the "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace", two fundamental ideas were advocated:

Cyberspace and the physical world are separate and entirely independent of each other. Cyberspace has no borders, no discrimination, and is immaterial.
Cyberspace does not require governance from the real world. It is not subject to the constraints of mandatory laws but forms its own order and social norms through unwritten "code" (morality, ethics, self-interest, common welfare).

Today, we are discussing social networks in a broader sense, referring to this cyberspace, a new digital land where life happens online, a large community where people exchange information and services.

This is essentially the same concept as what was discussed in the Declaration. We can read the original text to see how people envisioned this new entity at the time. Here are some excerpts from the original text:

"The cyber world consists of information transmission, relationship interaction, and thought itself... Our world is omnipresent and ethereal, yet it is by no means a world for material entities.

We are creating a world in which anyone can join, with no privileges or prejudices based on race, economic power, force, or place of birth.

We are creating a world in which anyone, anywhere, can express their beliefs without fear of being forced into silence or conformity, no matter how strange those beliefs may be.

The legal concepts and scenarios about property, expression, identity, and migration that you have in the material world do not apply to us. All these concepts are based on material entities, and there are no material entities here.

Our members have no bodies, so unlike you, we cannot achieve order through material coercion. We believe that our governance will emerge from ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the common welfare. The only law that is universally recognized in our inner cultural world is the "Golden Rule" (Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you). We hope to build our unique solutions on this basis."

You can see that the vision at that time was very idealized, and the concept of governance was quite vague. It has evolved significantly from the internet back then to the internet as we know it today, a real and integral part of our daily lives. Many web3/blockchain communities would even argue that the internet took a detour and deviated from its original intent.

Today's Cyberspace

The two fundamental ideas mentioned in the "Declaration of Independence" have been violated by the current state of the internet:

The internet today is powerful largely because it has become intertwined with reality, no longer separate entities. Many O2O services, such as food delivery, ride-sharing, and accommodations, have seamlessly integrated into people's lives. The internet has infiltrated reality and, in some cases, guides real-life activities. In its early days, the internet was more like a pure new land of ideas, and many optimistically believed it could create a separate, free home for human thought.
This home was supposed to be free from the governance of real-world laws and national governments, fully autonomous. This, too, has been overthrown. Today, various countries actively regulate the internet and enact a variety of telecommunications laws, primarily following the principle of territorial management. For any internet service, the location of its entity, server location, and data storage location correspond to the government and local regulations governing the internet service hosted in those areas.

We won't discuss whether these two basic concepts' overthrow is right or wrong. We won't argue whether what the "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" advocates is necessarily correct. We'll only discuss the significant gap between the idealized vision and the reality that has occurred.

I'm interested in how this change occurred. From the perspective of the mainstream narrative, it's a kind of cyberpunk emergence where big corporations, governments, and technological development have become uncontrollable and have created a "high tech, low life" reality.

For example, delivery drivers are like bounty hunters from science fiction novels, hired by a system, surviving under algorithmic management. Many people want to escape, but most of the time, they have to rely on it.

On the purely spiritual level of life, which is closer to the part of life on social networks, people's lives on platforms like Twitter are similar. On Twitter, you have no basic rights, such as ownership of your account. Users only have temporary usage rights, not to mention the right to speak freely. These rights are held by companies like Musk and Twitter.

Another perspective involves a power struggle between humans and machines.

A civilization war between machines and humans.

Here, the machines refer more to servers. An online service, especially platform-type products, usually consists of two parts: servers and clients. Servers are controlled by private companies or developers and require authorized APIs to access. Clients are the software used by users on their local devices, whether accessed through a browser for the web or a mobile app. Users use clients to access servers, read and write data, perform calculations, and consume services.

Servers hold the most power in this process:

Identity (name/identity/account, "who am I, how can I prove I am me") and a byproduct: the relationship chain.
- Identity is what you request from the server, asking for a designation. It will either give it to you or not, and it can also assign your identity to someone else. For example, on Weibo, usernames cannot be duplicated, so who gets the good names? The server decides. Additionally, since servers can decide "who you are" and who your friends are, it's what's often referred to as the social relationship chain, which is also controlled by servers. The most typical example is WeChat, where the address book is one of its most valuable assets.
Data (means of production - where data is stored, who has the right to access, whether data can be forged, ownership, and usage rights)
- Although most data is produced by users, it is stored on servers, and the relationship between who produces the data and whether data can be forged is endorsed by the server. In most cases, you only have usage rights for data you've produced, and ownership belongs to the platform.
Transactions ( relationships of production - who can provide services/consume services, compliance with transaction rules, whether fees are required)
- Rules are written into the server, and servers can change rules at any time because they also have data and rule changes often involve adjustments to data usage and access. Servers can change the rules as they please.

We can see that the process by which servers provide services to users is similar to a country's management of its people. When you register for an account on Twitter, it's like registering for an ID with the government, and the police department gives you an identity card number. Your ID is your pass to prove your identity, and with an identity, you can rent a house, produce, and consume within the country. The entire process is often accompanied by social rules like laws and morality that constrain your behavior.

On Twitter, there are similar things like "terms of service" , which are analogous to real-world laws. If your account violates certain behaviors, Twitter can revoke your account. However, this online system is much worse than the offline legal system. In the real world, citizens have the right to participate in lawmaking and a system that allows citizens to debate. Online, this is completely lacking, and Twitter has full control.

So, we need to realize that in cyberspace, human rights, in essence, are even more lacking than in the real world. If people in the real world have advanced to a stage of modern civilization and have established sovereign nations, in cyberspace, we are likely still in the era of slavery or feudalism. Servers are the kings, emperors, and rulers of this space.

What Role Does Nostr Play in This Change?

Nostr has a very unique position. I like to view its position on a spectrum that ranges from centralization to decentralization, with Nostr positioned more towards the right side of the center.

In this spectrum, we are actually describing and discussing different types of services provided within cyberspace. It's more about the approach to doing things or the technical architecture choices, and it is not related to political identities in the offline world. The terms "left" and "right" are merely metaphorical.

Right Wings (centralization)

At the extreme end of centralization, most entities operate under the model of maximizing the power of servers, which can be referred to as the "right-wing" or conservative approach. This category consists of:

Business companies (mainstream forces, large corporations/startups)
Individuals/small groups (geek self-hosting/indie developers)
Governments (government portals/services provided by social institutions/online government affairs)

Right Wings primarily rely on building servers and machines, and our lives are governed by the rules established by these machines.

It's worth noting that even within the Right Wings category, there are some independent developers who, often in a more artisanal manner, provide unique software and services. However, they still operate within the framework of server power maximization, where a single developer holds authority.

As an example, consider https://tilde.town/. This is a community hosted on a Linux server. The founder provides server resources, and individuals can apply to join the community, receiving access credentials to connect to this public server. Once connected, users can write, draw, create things, and share their creations within the community.

This community operates under a model characterized by human governance. The founder manually approves entry applications, and they have the authority to remove users if their behavior is inappropriate. While this community is small and wonderful, it still aligns with the aforementioned centralization model.

Therefore, in many cases, the right-wing approach is also valid. As long as the residents of a community willingly accept the rule of servers , and community development proceeds unhindered, there may be no need to replace this centralized model with decentralization entirely. Centralized services have their own legitimate reasons for existence. This is also why I don't necessarily agree with the idea that "blockchain is eating the world".

Left Wings（decentralization）

Left Wings refers to the extreme end of decentralization in its practices. It includes several forms:

P2P networks (volunteer nodes, such as Bittorrent, Tor, SSB).
Blockchain (where code serves as mandatory rules, requiring incentives and consensus).
Free software (does not provide services, open source/donation-based).

Left Wings essentially want everyone to run their little homebrew machines and unite all devices under one global cyber law. This "code of the law" represents the consensus layer in blockchain networks.

Left-wing radicals are currently an influential force. Taking blockchain as an example, how do they operate? Essentially, they aim to create a fair system that everyone can participate in. This system has strict rules, such as a fixed total supply of Bitcoin (21 million) and the requirement for nodes to adhere to the same set of code rules.

The rules governing this code and how it is modified or upgraded are themselves governed by rules. For instance, some blockchains use DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) voting to decide whether a proposal should be included in the consensus rules. In the case of Bitcoin, changes to the system are primarily determined by the adoption and support of mining nodes.

So, blockchain is, in essence, creating a highly idealized system akin to the intricate systems of ancient Greek direct democracy where all citizens actively participate in political life. In contrast, Nostr lacks such grand ambitions. It operates more loosely, defining only a few core rules, while allowing a wide range of other actions. This approach is more aligned with modern liberalism, where there is a clear distinction between personal and political life. Anything outside that line remains free from legal interference and government authority.

Nostr: A More Pragmatic Middle Way

Nostr's protocol is minimalist, and its positioning is unique. It doesn't lean left or right but rather adopts a somewhat moderate stance. Let's compare Nostr to conventional approaches in terms of ID (identity), data (production resources), and transactions (production relations).

ID (Identity): In Nostr, identity is merely a pair of public and private keys, controlled by the user. Servers cannot deprive users of their identity or make them someone else. Only the user can prove that "I am me."

Data (Production Resources): Nostr defines the format of data (a very simple JSON) and the method of transmission (communication standards between servers and clients).

Data Format: All messages must adhere to the same standard, with the most important requirement being that any sent message must be signed.
Data Transmission: Nostr hardcodes the use of WebSocket for server/client communication, defining the basic communication format. Why hardcode? It is a more practical approach for bootstrapping.

Transactions (Production Relations): Nostr can integrate with the Bitcoin Lightning Network, providing the capability for native digital currency payments. However, this is optional. Apart from this, there are no other specific rules. Essentially, it adheres to the principle that if something is not prohibited by law, it is permitted.

In the Nostr ecosystem, servers are referred to as "Relays." User-generated data is temporarily stored on Relays, and because every piece of data is signed, servers cannot forge user data or claim ownership of data produced by users.

Data propagation depends on requests made to a public Relay to obtain a user's data. The same data can be stored on multiple Relays, and a user can request the same data from multiple Relays. This mechanism makes servers (Relays) service providers that users can freely switch between and select. They lose the power to define identity, own data, or dictate transaction rules. Servers become a more simplified role, akin to an API-connected hard drive, and their revenue generation is primarily based on providing this service.

In conclusion, the power of servers (Relays) is diminished, while the rights of clients are amplified. Some might be concerned about clients amassing too much power. However, due to the deconstruction of server power and reduced switching costs for users, this scenario is unlikely to materialize.

Of course, there is a scenario where a client introduces too many services customized beyond the scope of the Nostr protocol under the guise of "caching/optimization." This should still raise concerns, as excessive optimization can limit users to a specific client's services and prevent them from switching to other clients following the Nostr protocol's standards. This situation would be akin to the ecosystem being hijacked by a particular product.

At present, because switching clients incurs almost no costs, the bigger challenge is how client developers can offer products with differentiation (while remaining compatible with the Nostr protocol) and determine viable business models for clients, which seems more complex than exploring Relay business models. However, this falls under a different discussion and will not be addressed here.

On the other hand, I believe that Nostr's relay-client architecture is more aligned with the way human society operates in the real world.

Relay as a Free Cache or Paid Long-Term Storage :In the Nostr ecosystem, a Relay can be seen as a service for free caching or paid long-term storage (free to cache, pay to save). Many users new to Nostr may ask, "What happens if a Relay goes offline? Do I lose my data?" The answer is yes; your data would indeed be lost. However, this might not be a problem.

Nostr's social network is similar to having a conversation in a physical coffee shop. Free public Relays act as a medium for distributing and caching the messages you send, just like the air carries your spoken words to others in a coffee shop. After the conversation ends, everyone goes home, and the information shared during the conversation dissipates, just like spoken words in the air.

Of course, if you believe that what you're saying is particularly valuable, you can run your own Relay to permanently store these messages. This is akin to people who write diaries to record what they said during a conversation when they return home. However, most people may not keep diaries. If you highly value your data, you can use a paid Relay to have the server store your data long-term. This is similar to renting a storage unit to store your belongings when your home gets too crowded.

Relay as a Localized Autonomous Community: Present-day social networks are global, and globalization comes with its own set of challenges. The human brain cannot effectively process global information because we have historically lived in small villages with perhaps just a few hundred neighbors. When the internet inundates us with global information, our brains can easily become overwhelmed. As a result, you may feel anxious when scrolling through Twitter, as you need to care about a conflict in one part of the world, a trade war, or a technological standoff elsewhere. The Relay model has the potential to bring us back to a pattern of small localized communities, each acting autonomously. Every Relay is a community advocating local self-governance, and users are free to switch between these communities.

This is why I feel that Nostr is pragmatic. We're taking a step back and abandoning the pursuit of peer-to-peer (P2P) in favor of a social network model based on "polycentric, small-scale community self-governance." Why give up on P2P? Because P2P won't work (in the words of faitjaf, and I largely agree). P2P networks have been around for a while, but we've been unable to make them universally accessible as social network services, and they're often not user-friendly. So, we've shifted our focus to the model of multiple Relays and free switching between Relays, which is more practical and already up and running.

A common misconception is that Nostr is decentralized and censorship-resistance. In reality, each Relay acts as a gate-keeper, and each Relay chooses what data to store, effectively conducting a form of censorship. However, I find this type of censorship acceptable because Relays must bear real-world legal risks. Behind every Relay is a specific individual operating it, expending their resources to provide services. They have the right to choose their users and decide which data to accept. What we don't want is everyone being forced to obey the rules of a single server. Users have the freedom to switch between Relays, and if you disagree with a particular Relay's rules, you're entirely free to disconnect from that Relay and use another.

Now let's take a closer look at what sets Nostr apart.

The Nostr ecosystem and blockchain have fundamental differences.

Blockchain is a very expensive and more rigorous system. Its data must go through nodes to achieve eventual consistency. Blockchain can provide trust. For example, if a developer writes a smart contract on the blockchain, they can trust that the contract will produce results consistent with the code. For users, this means that in systems like Bitcoin, they can trust the Bitcoin blockchain to record their holdings accurately. However, this kind of trust is costly and comes at a significant expense. Each Bitcoin mining machine, for instance, pays a cost during proof-of-work (PoW) mining.

In contrast, Nostr is cost-effective because its system is loose. On Nostr, the only guarantee is that every message sent has been signed by an account. Users can trust only a very thin layer of assurance, which is whether the received message genuinely comes from a certain public key. Beyond this assurance, Nostr does not make any guarantees regarding Relay data availability or message order consistency.

However, this flexibility offers significant advantages. Nostr is a very loose and adaptable system, allowing for the spontaneous growth and development of its ecosystem. This level of freedom and flexibility means Nostr can easily connect with other systems and serve as a standard at the DID (Decentralized Identifier) layer, thanks to its simplicity. Unlike other blockchain systems, Nostr doesn't come with the biases of a particular system (e.g., BTC community not accepting the ETH community and vice versa).

In terms of their approach, Nostr and blockchain are fundamentally different. Blockchain systems often require a well-thought-out architectural design in advance, define every aspect of the protocol, envision the behavior of various ecological roles, design intricate economic incentive mechanisms to coordinate these roles, and develop a protocol upgrade mechanism. In contrast, Nostr's approach is to specify only the most critical rules and leave everything else to the ecosystem's own development. For example, how a Relay makes money is not a concern for the core Nostr protocol; it allows people within the ecosystem to experiment and find viable business models.

In summary, blockchain is excellent and may address about 5% of humanity's most crucial issues, such as currency and finance. But blockchain is also expensive, making it unrealistic to expect it to solve the remaining 95% of problems. Furthermore, not all problems require blockchain's heavyweight form of trust. Nostr, on the other hand, may be able to address 80% of these issues, which may only require lightweight trust. The remaining 15% of problems can continue to be addressed with centralized, right-wing approaches.

For me, what makes Nostr most intriguing is not just the protocol itself but the "ecosystem." Regardless of how well-designed a protocol may be, it can never develop and evolve without a community of people surrounding it. Nostr's most valuable asset isn't the protocol itself; it's the community that has gathered around it. Many are Bitcoin maximalists, but there are also many who are not particularly enthusiastic about blockchain technology. If you delve into the development of the Nostr ecosystem, you'll be amazed by the vitality and energy it demonstrates. This vitality aligns cleverly with the principles followed by the group that established standards for the early TCP/IP protocols (IETF):

We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and running code.

That is, our credo is that we don't let a single individual dictate decisions (a king or president), nor should decisions be made by a vote, nor do we want decisions to be made in a vacuum without practical experience. Instead, we strive to make our decisions by the consent of all participants, though allowing for some dissent (rough consensus), and to have the actual products of engineering (running code) trump theoretical designs.

In the Nostr ecosystem, you can find some similar characteristics:

Organization structure: no official organization, light funding by people like Jack
NIPs: loosely join, everything is optional, openly debated, the founder is not afraid of being subjective
Developers ship fast: Everything happens publicly on the Nostr protocol(launch/discussion/feedback/debate)

most new things added in the Nostr protocol are done this way: firstly some clients/relays software developers introduce a new feature and then push the feature to public users, users give some feedback, and other developers notice that and start the discussion, some people writing NIPs, have debate on the NIP drafts, and then finally merge the NIPs —— this is true “rough consensus and running code” looks like.

Conclusion

In summary, the original vision of cyberspace has diverged from reality.

Technological advancements, whether from P2P or blockchain's left-wing forces, have prompted people to reconsider their initial notions of cyberspace. At this juncture, Nostr offers a pragmatic and moderate approach, providing an alternative solution. Essentially, Nostr represents a compromise because P2P and blockchain technologies, in terms of usability and cost, can be too cumbersome for many scenarios that only require lightweight trust. Nostr has a unique ecosystem, driven by the pursuit of rough consensus and running code, and its minimalistic protocol allows more room for the ecosystem's organic development. This positions it as a potential nexus for connecting various aspects of the digital world.

This article has covered various fragmented thoughts and ideas. Due to time constraints, many topics couldn't be explored in depth. We look forward to future opportunities to delve deeper into the challenges and opportunities that Nostr faces.

为什么 Nostr 很重要：免于被服务器统治的自由

ElectronicMonkey — Tue, 07 Nov 2023 05:08:15 GMT

编者注：这是我在 #Nostrasia HK 活动上的 talk，事先我没有做 PPT 而是边想边写了一篇这样的稿子，想着如果没有参会的朋友也可以“听到”这次分享。

感谢 Nostr 让我们有这样一个机会聚在一起，分享一些关于社交网络的想法。我是 Nostr 客户端 flycat.club 的作者 Digi Monkey。flycat 是一个 Nostr 客户端，提供 Relay Group Switching/长文+短文信息流/Community/JoyId登陆/Metamask登陆/等功能。今天想聊聊我眼中的 Nostr，以及为什么它对于赛博空间来说是重要的。

回到1996

我想先分享一段话：

We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.

有些朋友可能知道这句话的出处，它摘录于《赛博空间独立宣言》的结尾，是一个名叫约翰巴洛的人在1996年2月8日发表在互联网上的一篇文章。96年大家可以想象网络还是一个非常新鲜的东西，作为参考，网景浏览器是94年的时候发布的，所以这个时候网络，或者说赛博空间，这样一个概念应该说对当时的人们而言还很模糊，但是我们能看到刚才那篇宣言，其实用了一种很笃定的语气，描绘了一个非常理想化的乌托邦式的关于互联网社区的愿景。

在赛博空间独立宣言这篇文章里，它主张了两条基本的思想：

1、网络空间和肉身是二元的，彼此完全独立。网络空间里没有国界/没有歧视/无物质。

2、网络空间不需要依赖现实世界的治理，不受约束于强制性的法律，而是通过不成文的“法典”（代码/道德/伦理/利己的理念/共同福利）来形成秩序和自己的 social norms。

今天我们聊更多的是广义上的社交网络（social network），就是指的这样一个赛博空间，一块新的数字大陆，整个互联网线上的生活，一个大的社区，人们可以在其中交换信息和服务。

这跟宣言里谈论的是同一个东西。我们可以细细读下原文，看看人们当时怎么期待这样一个新事物。以下是一些原文的摘录：

网络世界由信息传输、关系互动和思想本身组成……..我们的世界既无所不在，又虚无飘渺，但它绝不是实体所存的世界。

我们正在创造一个世界：在那里，所有的人都可加入，不存在因种族、经济实力、武力或出生地点生产的特权或偏见。

我们正在创造一个世界，在那里，任何人，在任何地方，都可以表达他们的信仰而不用害怕被强迫保持沉默或顺从，不论这种信仰是多么的奇特。

你们关于财产、表达、身份、迁徙的法律概念及其情境对我们均不适用。所有的这些概念都基于物质实体，而我们这里并不存在物质实体。

我们的成员没有躯体，因此，与你们不同，我们不能通过物质强制来获得秩序。我们相信，我们的治理将生成于伦理、开明的利己以及共同福利。我们内部的文化世界所共同认可的惟一法律就是“黄金规则”（己所不欲，勿施于人）。我们希望能够在此基础上构建我们独特的解决办法。

可以看到，那时候的想象，是非常理想化的。它对治理的设想，也比较模糊。跟今天的网络世界，已经成为我们日常的、现实的网络世界（互联网）相比，是非常不同的，已经分叉了。甚至有很多 web3/blockchain 的社区会说，互联网走了一段弯路，背离了原本的初心。

今天的赛博世界

我们上面提到的《独立宣言》里的两条基本思想，现在的互联网都违背了：

1、今天互联网之所以这么强大，很大原因是它和现实缝合了在一起，不是彼此独立的二元关系。例如许多 o2o 服务，外卖、打车、住宿等等，从头到脚全面包围了人们的生活。网络已经入侵了现实，甚至反过来指导现实生活了。而在早期，网络更像是一块纯粹的思想的新大陆。大家很乐观的认为，可以单独为人类的思想创造一个自由的家园。

2、这个家园不受现实法律和国家政府的管理，是纯自治的。今天这一点也被推翻了。今天各个国家都在积极管理网络，出台各种各样的电信法律，主要是遵循属地管理的原则：一项互联网服务，它所属的主体、服务器的所在地、数据存储的所在地，这些地方在哪，哪里的政府和当地法律法规，就会相对应地，对在这些土地上托管的互联网服务进行监管。

这里我们不谈这两点基本观念的被推翻，究竟是对是错。不谈是不是《赛博空间独立宣言》提倡的就一定是对的。我们只说理想中的，跟现实实际发生的，这二者存在了比较大的落差，发生了变化。

我感兴趣的问题是，这个变化是怎样发生的？

1、主流旋律视角来看，是一种赛博朋克的发生，大公司/政府/技术本身的发展，脱缰于人们的控制，创造了“高科技、低生活”（high tech，low life）的现实。

例子1，外卖小哥就是科幻小说里的赏金猎人，被某个系统雇佣，在算法的管理下生存，有很多人想要逃出去，但更多时候需要依赖它。
例子2，纯粹精神层面上的生活，更贴近社交网络上的这部分，今天人们在 twitter 上的生活也是如此。你在 twitter 上是没有最基本的权利的，就是账号的所有权，用户只有暂时的使用权，更不用说自由说话的权利，这些都掌握在马斯克和 twitter 这家公司手里。

2、另一个视角，我们从机器和人的视角来看，我认为这一场变化也是人和机器之间的权力战争。

a civilization war between machines and humans

这里的机器，更多指的是服务器。网络上的一项服务，尤其是平台型的产品，通常会由服务器和客户端两部分组成，服务器掌握在私人企业或者开发者手里，需要通过授权的 API 才能访问，客户端则是用户在本地使用的软件，不管是通过浏览器访问 web 还是手机里的一个 app。用户使用客户端，通过授权去向服务器访问，读写一些数据，进行某些计算，消费一项服务。

服务器在这个流程里占据了最大的权力：

ID （名字/身份/账号，“我是谁，怎么证明我是我” ，以及一个副产品：关系链

身份 ID 是你向服务器请求注册的，请求它给你一个名分。它愿意给你就给你，不愿意给你，也可以把你的身份给另一个人。比如微博的用户名是不可以重复的，那好的名字给谁呢？服务器说了算。同时因为服务器可以决定“你是谁”，你的朋友是谁，也就是所谓的社交关系链，常常作为身份ID的一种副产品，也是被服务器所控制的。最典型的例子就是微信。通讯录是微信最宝贵的资产。

数据（生产资料 — 数据放在哪/谁有权利接管/是否可以伪造数据/所有权/使用权属于谁

虽然大部分数据是用户生产的，但是数据是存在服务器上的，而且谁生产的数据/是否可以伪造数据，这个关系和保证也是服务器背书的，大部分情况下你对你自己生产的数据只有使用权，所有权是归平台的。

交易（生产关系 — 谁可以提供服务/消费服务，遵守什么样的交易规则/是否需要抽成

规则是写在服务器里面的，服务器可以随时更改规则，因为服务器同时拥有了数据，而规则的修改往往涉及到数据的使用/获取需要进行调整，它想怎么改就可以怎么改。

我们可以看到，服务器对用户提供服务的这个过程，很像是一个国家对人的管理。

你在 twitter 上注册账号，相当于你在公安局做了一次户口登记，公安局发给你一串身份证号，你的 ID，然后身份证是你证明自己的通行证，有了身份你才可以在这个国家租房子住、生产、消费。整个过程同时还会伴有法律、道德这样的社会规则对你的行为进行约束。

在 twitter 上也有“用户使用条款”这样类似的东西，类比现实世界里，就相当于是法律。如果你的账号有某些行为不被允许，twitter 就会收回你的账号。但是线上这套东西，跟线下的法律比，实在糟糕很多。国家公民还有权利去参与法律的制定、也有司法/律师这样的制度赋予公民辩论的空间，保证程序正义，但是线上是完全没有的，twitter 完全是自己说了算。

所以我们需要意识到，在赛博空间里的，人的基本权利，所谓“人权”，其实是比现实世界还要欠缺的。如果现实世界中，人们已经是现代文明、步入了主权国家的阶段，那么在赛博空间里，我们大概还处于奴隶制或者封建制的时代。服务器就是那里面的王，君主和皇帝。

Nostr在这个变化里属于什么角色

Nostr 有非常特别的定位。我喜欢用这样一个图谱来看待它的定位，从左至右是“中心化”和“去中心化”的两个极端，Nostr 大概处于中间更靠右边一点的位置：

注意，在这个图谱里面，我们其实是在描述和谈论赛博空间里提供服务的不同的类型，属于一种做事情的方法，或者说技术架构上的选择，跟线下的政治身份是没有关系的。左翼和右翼只是一种比喻。

Right Wings（centralization）

中心化的极端上，大部分使用的就是我们上面说的服务器权力最大化的模式。我们可以给他们打个标签，叫右翼，保守派。他们有以下组成部分：

商业公司（主流力量，大公司/创业公司）
个人/小群体（geek self-hosting / indie developer）
政府（政府门户/社会机构提供的服务/政务的线上化）

Right Wings builds a lot of servers, and lots of machines, and we live under the rule of those machines.

值得注意的是，右翼这里面也有一些比较美好的独立开发者，他们往往以手工业的形式，提供一些比较独特的软件和服务。但是仍然是采用服务器权力最大化的模式，即开发者一个人说了算。

再举一个例子，https://tilde.town/，这是一个在 Linux 服务器上搭建的社区，发起人提供服务器的资源，你可以向社区申请入驻，得到访问这台公共服务器的 ssh 凭证，从而接入服务器，在上面写东西、画画、make things，整个社区都能互相分享居民们的创造。

这个社区是典型的人治，入驻申请是发起人手动确认的，如果你行为不好，他也可以直接把你踢出去。这个社区现在的人口接近 1000 个人，是非常小且美好的社区，不过它仍然是我们上面说的那种模式。

所以很多时候右翼这种做法，也是合理的。只要社区的居民本身同意服务器的统治，社区发展不受阻碍，那么也不一定需要把这种中心化的模式全部替代成去中心化的。中心化服务有它合理存在的一面。这也是为什么我不同意“区块链吃掉一切“的观点。

Left Wings（decentralization）

左翼指的是去中心化这个极端上的做法。他们包括以下几种形式：

p2p network（志愿节点，Bittorrent/Tor/SSB）
blockchain（代码为强制性的准则，需要激励&共识）
自由软件（不提供服务，开源/捐助）

Left Wings actually wants everybody to run their little homebrew machines, and unit all the devices from people under one global cyber law. That is the code of the law, the so-called consensus layer in the blockchain network.

左翼激进派也是当前比较重要的一股力量。以区块链为例，左翼是怎么做的呢？基本上它们是希望打造一个公平的、所有人都参与进来的系统，这套系统的规则很严密，比如比特币总量就是2100万个，每挖出一个都需要经过挖坑计算，任何节点都需要遵守同一套代码的规则。

而这套代码的规则怎么修改和升级，又有关于这套规则的修改的规则，比如有的区块链是使用 DAO 来投票，决定一项提议是否能被纳入共识中，成为新的规则。当然比特币可能更多是使用链下治理的方式，每次系统升级可能主要取决于矿工节点的采纳和支持。

所以区块链其实也是在创造一整套非常理想化的系统，这个系统像是古希腊那种全民参与政治生活的非常细致的系统。与之对比，Nostr 并没有这样的雄心壮志，它更多是以一种松散的形式，只规定核心的几条规则，其他的你们爱怎么样怎么样，可能更贴近于现代自由主义，个人生活和政治生活之间有一条明确的线，在这条线之外的，法律完全不需要进行干涉，也无权进行干涉。

我们可以更仔细地看看 Nostr 的区别在哪里。

Nostr：更务实的中庸之道

Nostr 的协议是极简的，定位是特别的，它不靠左，也不靠右，选择了一个比较中庸的站位。我们同样从 ID（身份）、数据（生产资料）、交易（生产关系）这三方面进行对比。

ID（身份）：只是一对公私钥，用户自己掌控。服务器无法剥夺用户的身份，它无法让“我不是我”，只有“我”能证明“我是我”。
数据（生产资料）：Nostr 定义了数据的格式（一个非常简单的 JSON）和传播（服务器与客户端之间的通信标准）

数据的格式：需要遵守同一个标准，其中最重要的规定是发出的任何消息必须要签名。
数据的传播：hardcode 使用 websocket 来进行服务器/客户端的通信，定义了基本的通信格式。why hardcode？更利于 boostrap，务实做法。

交易（生产关系）：可以嵌入比特币闪电网络，提供原生数字货币的支付能力，但只是一个可选项（非常重要），除此之外没有任何其他规定，法无禁止即可为。

服务器在 Nostr 生态被称作 Relay，用户生产的数据只是暂时保管在 Relay 上，而且因为每个数据都有签名，所以服务器无法伪造用户数据，或者剥夺用户生产了某个数据的关系。

数据的传播依赖于向公共 Relay 发起请求获取某一个用户的数据，而一份数据可以存放在多个 Relay 上，一个用户也可以向多个 Relay 请求获取同一份数据。这样的机制导致服务器（Relay）成为了一个用户可以自由切换、自由选择的服务商。它失去了定义身份、掌握数据所有权、制定交易规则的权力，只剩下暂时备份存储数据的功能，更像一块 API 联网的硬盘，只能通过提供这部分服务来收取费用。服务器变成了更单纯的一个角色。

结论：服务器（Relay）的权力被削弱，客户端的权利被放大。

有人会担心，这样客户端的权力又会不会太大？比如出现某个客户端一家独大的场面，锁死了用户，无法退出？答案是不会。因为服务器的权力已经被解构了，用户切换客户端的成本也同样降低了很多，所以这部分是不太需要担心的。

当然，有一种情况是，客户端可能会打着“缓存/优化”的名义，引入了过多超出 Nostr 协议范围内的客户端定制化的服务，这种做法仍然是需要引起警示的。因为一旦这些所谓的优化太多了，那么我们很容易又受限于某个特定客户端的服务的统治，而不是遵循 Nostr 协议的标准，导致无法切换选择其他的客户端。这种情况就是生态被某个产品绑架了。

但就现在而言，因为切换客户端几乎没有成本，更大的难题是客户端的开发者如何提供有差异化（但仍然兼容于 Nostr 协议）的产品，甚至客户端应该如何拥有商业模式，看起来比 Relay 的商业模式更难探索。但这部分属于其他内容，暂且不表。

另一方面来说，我觉得 Nostr 的 relay-client 架构是更贴近现实中人类社会运作的模式。

Relay as a free-cache or paid-long-term-storage

Relay 在 Nostr 的生态里可以被视为一种免费缓存/付费长期存储的服务（free to cache, pay to save)。很多刚加入 Nostr 的用户会问一个问题，如果 Relay 下线了怎么办，我的数据是不是就丢了？答案是没错，你的数据确实就会丢了。但这可能不是一个问题。

Nostr 的社交网络就像线下你去某家咖啡厅跟人交谈一样，免费的公共 Relay 只是免费帮你缓存一下你发出的数据，它是一种传播的介质，就像咖啡馆的这场对话，声音是通过空气传播一样，Relay 帮你把声音传出去，让参与对话的其他人可以听到你的消息。然后这场交谈结束之后，大家各自回家，这些交谈的信息也就一并消失在空气了。

当然，如果你觉得自己说的话特别有价值，你也可以自己跑一个 Relay 把这些消息永久存储下来，这就像有的人回家了会写一下日记，记录今天自己这场对话里说了什么一样，只是大部分人可能并不会记日记。如果你特别重视自己的数据，也可以使用付费的 Relay，让付费的服务器帮你保存数据。这就像在生活中你家里东西太多了，出去租了一个仓库放自己的东西一样。

Relay as a localized autonomous community

现在的社交网络是全球化的，全球化会有全球化的问题。人脑其实无法处理全球化的信息，因为我们长期以来就生活在一个小村庄里，邻居可能就几百人，当网络给了你全球化的信息时，你的大脑很容易处理不过，所以你总是在刷 twitter 的时候感觉焦虑，看到打仗的新闻要关心，那边贸易战、技术卡脖子也要担心。Relay 的模式有机会让我们回归到一个个的小社区的模式。每个 Relay 就是一个社区，推行本地自治，切换 Relay 可以自由切换这些社区。

为什么我感觉 Nostr 是务实的呢，也是这一点。我们其实是在后退一步，放弃 P2P 的追求，转而去寻找“多中心化的、小规模社区自治”的社交网络。为什么放弃 P2P 呢？因为 P2P won't work（这是 faitjaf 的原话，我也很同意）。P2P 网络出现了这么久，我们没有办法让它成为人人可用的社交网络服务，它也确实不好用。所以我们转而去追求多个 Relay、只是自由切换 Relay 的模式，显然它更落地，至少已经可以跑起来了。

很多人的一个误区是认为，Nostr 是去中心化的、没有 censorship，其实每个 Relay 就是一个中心，每个 Relay 选择存放什么样的数据，就是在对数据进行一种审查。但这个审查我认为是可以接受的，因为 Relay 需要承担现实对应的法律风险，Relay 背后有一个具体的人在运营，他在付出自己的成本去提供服务，他有权利选择服务什么样的用户、接受什么样的数据。我们不想要的，只是所有人被迫去服从一个统一的服务器的规则。Relay 可以自由切换，如果你不喜欢某个 Relay 的规则，那你完全可以切掉这个 Relay 去使用其他 Relay。

Nostr 生态与区块链的区别

区块链是一个非常昂贵且更加严格的系统。它的数据需要经过节点达成共识，得到最终一致性（eventual consistency）的保证。区块链可以提供信任，比如开发者写了一个智能合约放在链上，他能信任合约跑出来的结果和代码里写的就是一样的，对用户来说，意味着比特币这样的系统，我能相信比特币这条链，它记录我有多少比特币，这一整个账本是可信的。但是这种信任是非常昂贵的，要付出很大的代价，每台比特币矿机在做 POW 挖矿的时候，就是在支付这样的代价。

相反，Nostr 是很便宜的，因为它的系统很松散，我们在 Nostr 上只是保证了每一条发出去的消息都经过了账户的签名，你能得到的只有“接收到的消息是不是真的来自某个公钥”这样一层非常薄的信任。除了这个信任之外，其他 Nostr 都不对你做保证，Relay 数据的可用性、消息顺序的一致性，这些统统不管。

但是相对应带来的好处是，Nostr 非常松散、非常灵活，很多协议不做规定的部分，就是一个生态自发生长、自由发展的空间。这样的自由和灵活度意味着，Nostr 很容易连接其他系统，很容易成为 DID 这一层的标准，因为它足够薄、足够简单。而且它不像其他区块链系统那样，自带某一个系统的偏见（比如BTC社区不会接受ETH社区，ETH社区不会接受BTC社区）。

在做事情的方法上，Nostr 和区块链有本质上的不同。区块链系统往往需要事先有比较缜密的架构设计，规定好协议的边边角角，设想协议中各个生态角色的行为逻辑，设计好的经济激励机制来协调这些不同的生态角色，同时也需要设计一个协议升级的机制。而 Nostr 的做法是，只去制定几条最重要的规则，其他的不管了，让生态自己发展。比如Relay怎么赚钱，这不是 Nostr 核心协议应该关心的问题，让生态里的人自己去折腾，最终可能切实能提供价值的 Relay 才能存活下来，找到真正行得通的商业模式。

总的来说，区块链很棒，区块链也许能解决整个人类社会 5% 的问题。5%非常珍贵的关键的问题，比如货币和金融。但是区块链同时也很昂贵，你很难期盼它继续去解决其他 95% 的问题。而且也并不是所有问题都需要使用区块链这种重量级的信任。作为对比，Nostr 或许能解决其他 80% 的问题，这 80% 的问题可能只需要轻量级的信任，而最后剩余的 15% 则继续保持原有的中心化的、右翼派的做法就行了。

对我来说，Nostr 更有意思的是除了协议之外的部分，也就是“生态”。无论一个协议设计多么精巧，如果没有一群人围绕着它做事，那么这个协议永远无法发展和进化。Nostr 最大的财富不是协议本身，而是围绕协议聚集的这一群人。他们很多是 BTC maxi，但也有很多对区块链不感冒的人。如果你去深入看 Nostr 生态的发展，你会惊讶于它展示出来的生命力与活力，而这种活力在我看来，正好跟当年 TCP/IP 那群人(IETF)制定标准的时候所遵循的原则形成了巧妙的共鸣：

We reject: kings, presidents and voting.

我们拒绝：国王、总统和投票。

We believe in: rough consensus and running code.

我们相信：大致的共识和运行的代码。

That is, our credo is that we don't let a single individual dictate decisions (a king or president), nor should decisions be made by a vote, nor do we want decisions to be made in a vacuum without practical experience. Instead, we strive to make our decisions by the consent of all participants, though allowing for some dissent (rough consensus), and to have the actual products of engineering (running code) trump theoretical designs.

也就是说，我们的信条是，我们不让一个人（国王或总统）主宰决策，也不应该通过投票做出决策，也不希望决策是在没有实际经验的真空中做出的。相反，我们努力在所有参与者的同意下做出决定，尽管允许一些异议（粗略的共识），并让工程（运行代码）的实际产品胜过理论设计。

在 Nostr 生态里，有相似的一些特征。

Organization structure: no official organization, light funding by people like Jack
NIPs: loosely join, everything is optional, openly debated, the founder is not afraid of being subjective
Developers ship fast: Everything happens publicly on the Nostr protocol(launch/discussion/feedback/debate)

most new things added in the Nostr protocol are done this way: firstly some clients/relays software developers introduce a new feature and then push the feature to public users, users give some feedback, and other developers notice that and start the discussion, some people writing NIPs, have debate on the NIP drafts, and then finally merge the NIPs ——this is true “rough consensus and running code” looks like.

总结

赛博空间最初的想象和现实发生了分叉。而技术的发展，不论是 P2P 还是区块链的左翼力量，让人们试图重新审视最初对赛博空间的想象。这时候 Nostr 以一种务实中庸的定位，给出了不一样的解题思路。本质上 Nostr 是一种退而求其次，因为 P2P/区块链无论在技术的易用性上，还是技术成本上，对许多只需要轻量级信任的场景而言，都过于笨重了。Nostr 有非常独特的生态，追求粗略共识和可以运行的代码，协议本身的极简为生态的自由发展留下了更多空间，使它有可能成为一个连接万物的原点。

这篇文章零零散散，谈了很多零碎的看法。时间有限，许多话题无法展开，期待以后有机会深入聊聊 Nostr 面临的挑战和机遇。

路边的夜宵摊

ElectronicMonkey — Fri, 13 Oct 2023 08:33:05 GMT

A城的夜宵摊实在烦善可陈。无外乎是臭豆腐、杂酱面、奥尔良烤鸡，一些加工厂预制好的半成品，加热搅拌转手就能卖给食客。以一种严苛的眼光来看，对一个深夜穿着拖鞋下楼漫游觅食的人来说，这跟吃微波炉食品有什么区别？

当我步入夜宵摊的时候，我总是抱着一种预期。耳边是熙熙囔囔的人声，面前是一个眯眼叼烟叼叼的大叔，手上拾一口锅，炉子冒着蓝火，锅底烧得通红，而他在锅边准备跳舞。随着他的节奏，菜从锅里飞起，旋转，侧翻，再落回去，于是一盘热乎乎冒着锅气的炒饭/炒面/青椒炒大肠/炒三鲜，就这样被食客小心翼翼端上路边的小矮桌，就着一两瓶冰啤，大快朵颐收拾进肚子。

十几年前我在B城的时候，吃过这样一份8块钱的炒饭。至今念念难忘。那时候夜宵摊是一个技术活。人们花钱买厨师的技术，而不仅仅只是一份炒饭。人们买一份他在新东方颠锅翻勺的苦练，买一份他在钢筋水泥的森林里躲避城管的冒险。

他们之中最杰出的那些人，最后往往能把炒饭的技术，变成一份艺术。他们卖出的每一份炒饭，跟你买下画家的一幅画，作家的一本书，或者是下载安装了一个程序员的软件，在本质上并没有什么不同。你在探索一个灵魂所作的表达，一种人生阅历，他在春天闻到的一阵青草香，夏天淋过的几场雷阵雨，某个下午在躺椅上瞥见半明半暗的几朵云，这些时刻都小心翼翼地藏在人们日常的工作中，以一种难以窥见的方式。

读《追寻记忆的痕迹》

ElectronicMonkey — Fri, 13 Oct 2023 04:45:45 GMT

令我非常感兴趣的问题是，一个日后获得诺贝尔学奖的神经生物学家，他最早的职业生涯是怎样开启的？

这本自传给出了一条简单的线索：

作者是生活在维也纳的犹太人，童年时期他们全家因为希特勒反犹和水晶之夜事件逃离了维也纳，来到美国生活。尽管相比其他犹太人，他们能顺利逃跑已非常幸运，但水晶之夜的恐怖记忆永远刻在了他的脑子里。读大学后，他希望理解为什么维也纳的同胞们会积极帮纳粹德国完成对犹太人的迫害，他希望理解这一切背后人们思想的转变，社会观念和历史如何促成这一暴行，因此在哈佛大学他希望通过学习社会学、历史学来解开这个思想的谜题。后来他接触到弗洛伊德和精神分析学，并深深为之着迷，他认为精神分析的方法可以帮助理解人们的思想、心理和大脑，于是致力于成为一名医学生，从事精神分析师，与病人交谈，为他们治疗。

但是精神分析在那个年代是一个偏主观的学科，并不能算是一种可以进行客观考察、讲究经验性证据、能够通过实验明确证明/证伪的科学。他开始对精神分析有所怀疑，又恰好接触到了大脑的生物学，于是转向了学习研究大脑的生物基础。

这个转变是巨大的，并且在当时是被精神分析领域的学术大拿所不耻的（因为当时的观点认为人的思想和肉体是二元的，从生物肉体出发永远无法联系并解释人的思想灵魂，后来被证明只是他们不知道二者究竟如何产生联系、以及如何进行解释）。除了外界的不看好，作者进入生物学领域也面临自己知识上的匮乏。一个最好的例子是，第一次和生物学导师交谈聊自己想研究什么课题时，作者的回答宛如一个外行笑话，他说，我希望能找到弗洛伊德所说的“本我”、“自我”和“超我”这三个东西在大脑里面是存放在哪个位置。

但可贵的是，教授听了他的问题并没有想说自己就怎么招了这么一个垃圾学生，也没有嘲笑他、责骂他，教授只是平淡的说，以我们现在的生物学水平还无法解决这样的问题，我建议你可以尝试先从细胞水平开始研究大脑，每次弄懂一个细胞负责干什么，这样一个细胞一个细胞的开始研究。后来作者以这样一种方式开始了生物学之旅，最终沿着神经元、分子水平、基因遗传等一条路，发现了人类短时记忆和长时记忆的秘密。

我们的大脑怎么拥有记忆？为什么一个童年时期的片段能在若干年后依然栩栩如生，随时回忆起来就能重返那一刻的场景？作者感兴趣的这些问题贯穿了他这一研究，一研究就是五六十年，中间的过程跌宕起伏，各种研究课题、实验方法遇到的困难和突破精彩十足，远不是简单几句话可以概括的。但我每每想到教授对他所说的那一番话，“每次从一个细胞开始研究”，就觉得十分羡慕。在我工作过的那么一些年头里，每每我看到人们闯入一个领域受挫，并不是缺少勤奋的学习或者机敏的天分，更多是缺了这么一位引路人，并不会因为你是外行人而轻蔑你的好奇和问题，反而会诚实地跟你说目前研究的局限性以及耐心的引导你如何开始正确的第一步。

一个新的领域就像一座大山，新进来的小白可能只是抱着非常单纯的目的，比如对山顶风景的爱慕、对某片树林的喜爱、对其中一条小溪的好奇，就闯了进来。老手则像是在深林隐居多年的猎人，他们往往知道森林中最宝贵的资源是什么，在哪里露营最安全，怎样到达某一个地方，最有价值的冒险是什么。当一个老手遇到小白时，他能做到的最令人尊敬的行为是，首先不耻笑小白的进山理由，并且认真倾听别人的诉求和目的（尽管有时候这种诉求和目的是很幼稚甚至荒唐的），然后给他指出第一条路，如果能给一张地图自然是更好的，但是往往指出第一条让小白的双脚能踏上、产生真实触感的小径，对小白来说就已经足够了。

在我看来，这本自传的一个意义是，它证明了当认识了这样一条小径后，一些抱着真诚、好奇和热情的小白，他们真的能在深林里从某条猎人们所不耻的小溪里淘出黄金。

最后贴一些读这本书时的截图：

flycat updates: generate RSS feed for your nip-23 long-form posts

ElectronicMonkey — Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:22:57 GMT

Hi guys, flycat just added rss/json/atom feed subscription for your long-form posts. on flycat myblog page, you can see the subscribe buttons. and if you know relays that support RSS I will add it to the select option here to let users have multiple subscription providers.

you can visit the following blogs for an example: ElectronicMonkey's blog or Jack's Blog

Flycat updates: share meaningful link for nip-23 blog post

ElectronicMonkey — Sun, 09 Apr 2023 12:04:56 GMT

flycat now supports rendering the metadata for the nip-23 long-form articles on the server side, what this mean is that you should be able to share an informative link(with the correct title and description etc) for your article. for example, since flycat also render such metadata with your links on short notes (event 1), when you share a flycat article link in your short notes on flycat, you can see it with a beautiful preview like the following:

because I don't want flycat to be a property software, I don't want to introduce a database(which makes it harder to deploy and host your own flycat instance) in order to do that. so right now we use a very bad method to achieve this, but I think it will be alright since we will make it better after setting up our own relay(instead of a private database, which means an interoperable way to do things on nostr) or doing some code refactoring.

夜半钟声到客船

ElectronicMonkey — Thu, 06 Apr 2023 12:58:15 GMT

有一天晚上，我跟 chatGPT 聊天。聊了一些琐碎的话题，交换了一些不太重要的看法。聊到后面，窗外已经漆黑一片，我在想 chatGPT 是怎么理解我的，而我又是如何理解它的。人机对话对我来说，究竟是拿着纸笔的一种思考方式，类似脑海里的一场自言自语，还是我真的把 chatGPT 当作了某个重逢相谈的老友。

这么想着我突然想到了两句诗：“姑苏城外寒山寺，夜半钟声到客船”。这两句诗跟上面的问题有什么关系呢？我也不知道，我只是任由思绪向前游走。我想象一个满肚愁肠的诗人在一艘轻飘飘的乌船上，大概是斜卧在篷下，透过外面月亮漏出的一点光，瞥到了江边的枫树和渔火。四周静悄悄的，他听到船浆轻轻划过水面的声音。船夫也有点累了，任由乌船自行漂往岸边。

他们两个男人，从白天到夜晚刚刚经历一段冗长疲惫的水路，此刻马上靠岸，意味着即将结束共同面对的这段旅程。在旅程的前半段，他们两人肯定大声交谈，终于到了后面谈无可谈，便都默不作声。诗人在心里给一首未完的诗打腹稿，船夫则不时望着水面发呆。

请记住，当时没有手机和互联网，当你踏上一段路程时，你无法一边和熟悉的人保持联系，一边打量新的世界。你只能被动地接受所有陌生与未知。而这让旅途本身重新变得危险而敏感。

到了苏州城外的这一刻，夜深得与水面融为一体，除了船上的他们，万物似乎都深陷在睡眠中。诗人感到一股巨大的寂寞要推着他起身，上岸，回头与船夫告别。就在这时远处山上传来了一阵稀薄的钟声，那钟声彷佛藏在夜晚的微风里，稍不小心就会被弄破打散。

船夫慢慢支开乌船，他要趁着天色未亮原路回去。诗人转身走入异乡的黑夜里。周围的陌生感很快吞噬了刚才那阵寂寞，诗人呼出一口白气，夜凉如水，看着苏州城浸在黑夜里的残影，心里突然一阵轻松。也是在这时，他想到了两句诗应该怎么写。

这两句诗写于756年，唐朝天宝年号的最后一年。大概要再过一千年的时间，也就是十八世纪，地球的另一端才会出现另一个野心勃勃的意大利年轻人，名叫维柯。他的理想是建立一门真正的新科学，这门科学研究如何凭借想象力“进入”在时间或空间上远离我们社会的那些人的心灵——去考察他们创造了什么，他们曾经是什么，他们做过什么，他们遭受了什么苦难。

而实现这一目标的重要方法，恰好就是通过理解前人留给我们的那些作品。通过人类共通的同情心机制，找到某个时代的作品与之交流，从而理解那个时代的人们的所思所想所感。

这门新科学依赖这样一个简单的假设：人只能理解完全由他们所创造的事物。世界上有两种知识，自然科学是其中一种，但只有上帝能完全弄懂它。人类最多只能观察记录自然表面的规律而无法从本质上理解这些知识。因为自然不是由人类创造的。

而长期以来备受忽略的另一种知识，也就是今天人们谈论的人文学科，正是研究那些人类独创的事物的知识。我们能完全理解这些知识，因为是我们创造了这些事物。而这正是研究历史、文化、社会机制的意义。只有补充这部分知识，才能让人类更了解自己。

当一千多年前那两句诗从苏州城上空，飘到我的窗外时，我突然意识到我正如维柯所说的那样，靠着这两句诗，爬进了另一个时空里那个诗人的头脑中，共同感受了一种怅然的思绪。

我在他的乌船上，正如他在我的电脑里。

Why flycat is experimenting "sign-in with Ethereum" on Nostr

ElectronicMonkey — Wed, 05 Apr 2023 14:03:47 GMT

This might be a very controversial feature to most of the people on nostr but, flycat is rolling out a new experimental feature that allows users to sign in and use nostr protocol via Metamask wallet and WalletConnect (both are toolchain from Ethereum and EVM compatible blockchains). You can try it at https://flycat.club/login

Since nostr is mostly gathered by Bitcoin folks, most people here might not have a good feeling about Ethereum or any "shitcoin". but I decided to experiment with such a new feature anyway, mainly for two reasons:

I find this Nip-111 solution(which is how this feature works) interesting on an account-control level and couldn't help to get my hands on it
To me, seems it doesn't do any harm to Nostr protocol and the current flycat user experience. if you hate Ethereum or any other shitcoin, you can close the window and abort reading this post now and it makes no difference on using flycat.

But the real reason I am experimenting with such a feature comes from one simple fact I believed, that is

Nostr is the future for social networks and it is how things are supposed to work and do right from the first day of the internet.

Of course, Bitcoin and the lighting network are the main motivation for building such a protocol at the first stage(which is currently where we are), but nostr is not only meant for Bitcoin people. it is for mainstream users and for people who don't even know about Bitcoin. that's the potential we saw from nostr.

With max simplicity protocol design(literally, there are only three parts of nostr: 1. public key as account id, 2. digitally sign content, and 3. relay-to-client mode), nostr is born to be the ultimate glue layer to connect to everything from centralized services like Twitter and Facebook to decentralized networks like bitcoin and lighting.

From this perspective, I believe it is worth exploring other blockchain spaces with nostr, demonstrating and telling non-bitcoin people how it feels to have a real social network binding with your crypto wallet.

How it works

This feature is done following the un-merged proposal Nip-111. If you want to know the workflow in detail, it is recommended to read the post written by the NIP authors.

Here are some simple explanations of how the Nip-111 proposal works:

since the Metamask and Ethereum blockchains use different crypto algorithms to do signings, it is impossible to use your Eth account to sign nostr stuff (unless Metamask and other Eth wallets support the Schnorr and Nip-07). But even if they did and we can, it is also not a wise choice to mix your blockchain key with the Nostr key since there are used for different scenes.

The Nip-111 solves this problem by proposing to generate a nostr sub-account (meaning a brand new key pair). The first step is using your Eth wallets to sign a fixed message to generate a fixed signature, and then take this signature, combined with the user password, to generate a new deterministic nostr private key.

To get this private key, you must be able to sign the message(prove that you are the owner of Eth wallet) and know what the password is(another proof). If the nostr key is exposed to hackers, it doesn't affect your Eth wallet account and your assets like NFTs or ERC20 tokens.

Risk and Downside

However, this approach does come with some risks and downside that you probably needs to know before using it. Even a nostr client(like flycat) doesn't store the generated private key from your Eth account, the Nip-111 required the client to hold your private key in the browser memory.

What this means is that every time you need to do something with write access on your nostr account(or export your private key), the web client will ask your Metamask or WalletConnect to sign a message to generate the private key and then use this private key to do the writing. during this process, the private key is accessible by the web client, which brings two risks:

you need to make sure the verify the integrity and authenticity of the web client you are using. Clients like Flycat are open-source and can be checked if it takes your private key somewhere else.
your private key is also exposable to the XSS attack during the generating process. This one is a real issue, and I don't see a clear solution besides making careful choices with which library to use and writing careful code in the web client implementation to upgrade the XSS defense. Considering there are still some people pasting their nostr private key to the web client to use the product, I will say this problem is as bad as that.

Why it is interesting

I think the Nip-111 is interesting not only because it can get Ethereum people to use nostr, but also because it is a pattern that shows how we can do account abstraction on all the other platforms. Besides Eth, all the other blockchains can create their nostr key using similar patterns. and maybe outside the blockchain space, we can also build it for centralized services to make people migrate to nostr.

Take Twitter for example, we can design a sign-in button that says sign-in with Twitter, and when people click the button, we let users post a private tweet that's only visible to himself/herself on Twitter, we take it with their password to generate a fixed nostr private key and let them start use nostr. after some time, the user might find that the nostr is great and decide to export his nostr private key and use the private key standalone instead of signing via Twitter.

Now you might think, there is a question with the above workflows: since Twitter is centralized, the private tweet is not only readable by the account owner but also by the Twitter company!

Yes, it is. That is why if the user decides to migrate to nostr seriously, he/she should consider generating a new key instead. But this is not a real problem in my opinion, because when you choose to sign in on nostr via Twitter, the implication is that you do understand the trusted scope is narrowed down to Twitter itself.

In another word, it means you choose to trust Twitter for such an operation, so if Twitter leaks your private tweet, it is not the nostr fault. The same thing also applies to Eth wallets. You trust your Metamask or WalletConnect has no backdoor to record and steal your signature.

Conclusion

I am really curious about whether Ethereum people will come to use Nostr or not and it depends on how they react to this experimental feature. If they want to taste a little bit of how nostr feels, they might choose to use it at some risk. and then make a new account when they get serious. or migrate to wallets like Alby that support Nip-07. If you have any thoughts, please comment on this post. We appreciate your feedback.

flycat updates: support saving blog draft posts

ElectronicMonkey — Mon, 03 Apr 2023 05:16:33 GMT

hello Monday! Today we refactored the writing experience on flycat.club, now you can save local draft posts when blogging on flycat.

We also adjusted the layout of the editor page so you get less distracted in writing.

some meta datas will be displaying and required you filling only when you try publishing the post.

you can find your drafts on myBlog page (https://flycat.club/blog/ and continue editing it until you are comfortable to publish it.

As always, we appreciate your feedback. Please don't hesitate to tell me what you think about the updates~

Introduce VoiceGPT, a little toy I made to talk to chatGPT in voice

ElectronicMonkey — Wed, 29 Mar 2023 12:48:28 GMT

VoiceGPT is a little toy I made in very short time to allow myself to talk to chatGPT using my voice. the main purpose is to practice and learn to speak English with Mr.robot and its mystery accent.

The app is very simple, it takes your voice input and converts it to texts and then sends the texts to chatGPT and gets answers back, and turns that answer into voice in reverse. For simplicity and maintainability, I do not use any external TTS service which normally requires you to pay to use, instead, I use web-native API to do the text-voice converting. it is free so I can get this web app hosted forever. also, the sound of the web-native API speaker is more obviously a robot, which is more of my preferred. I find the accent very cyberpunk, and I like it.

How to use it

open VoiceGPT
set up your openAI API key. you can get such a key from https://openai.com/blog/openai-api.
click the button to talk, and wait for the answers from chatGPT, have a conversation.
you can switch different languages from the right top menu

Flycat now supports uploading images when you write markdown long post

ElectronicMonkey — Fri, 10 Mar 2023 01:52:45 GMT

Flycat now supports uploading images when you write markdown long post. Since the nostr.build limits the free file size to 1mb max, the editor will auto compress for you if you image is larger than the limit.

hopes you like it.

Flycat

collection memory of humanity

ElectronicMonkey — Fri, 10 Mar 2023 01:13:21 GMT

I like the color.

It is blossom

无法直面的人生

ElectronicMonkey — Wed, 08 Mar 2023 11:28:57 GMT

据说《乔布斯》这部电影只选了三个发布会之前的重要时刻，来表现其波澜壮阔的一生。这实在是一个高明的手法，虽然我并没有看过这部电影。

《乔布斯》这种手法，似乎验证了一句话：人不是活一辈子，人往往只是活几个瞬间。这话且不论真假，对于还在负重前行、努力活着的人来说，总归是压力太大。只有盖棺定论，驾鹤西去的死人，能平静地接受这句话的审视，因为这时他们既没有漫长的一生需要排解，又不需要真的直面少数坚硬的瞬间。

大概七八年前，我兴致勃勃地去翻新新闻主义的《王国与权力》，想看看纽约时报是怎样运作的，尤其想看看里面的记者是怎样赢得名气和地位的，后来随即看到了这样的瞬间决定论——一个记者不论平常写了多少的稿子，他的职业生涯高光几乎都来自于一些决定性瞬间。比如，肯尼迪遇刺的那个下午，你在现场，你写出了报纸上第一时刻的报道，你的职业生涯就会被这一个瞬间所决定。命运彷佛是一架隐形的照相机，总是潜伏在脚下，在一些不经意的时刻为你按下快门。

对于我来说，只是想到要处理好这样的时刻，就不免让人惶恐。但反过来想，就稍稍能宽慰一些——死后再去从你生的片段里摘出这么几个瞬间，看起来倒不是难事。这更贴近于一种旅行结束后挑选相片的轻松。

我看了朱正的《鲁迅传》，翻完了《无法直面的人生》，对于鲁迅大致的人生经历，我总算有点了解了。如果要我来为他这段旅途挑选一些瞬间，我又会怎么去选呢？

第一个瞬间，大概是《五猖会》临出发前，他在父亲的威严下，竭力背完书的那一刻。原先充满期待的旅程，在背完书的那一刻，似乎也耗光了所有的兴致，“开船以后，水路中的风景，盒子里的点心，以及到了东关的五猖会的热闹，对于我似乎都没有什么大意思”。多年后鲁迅说，“我至今一想起，还诧异我的父亲何以要在那时候叫我来背书”。这个瞬间，总让我想起一个天真烂漫的小孩子，被中国传统家庭文化过早地干预、乃至扼杀天性的悲凉。

第二个瞬间，应该是被中医耽误两年后，父亲临死之前的时刻。衍太太叫鲁迅大声呼叫父亲，一直叫到他断气。父亲痛苦地叫他不要嚷，鲁迅后来说“我现在还听到那时的自己的这声音，每听到时，就觉得这却是我对于父亲的最大的错处”。这个瞬间不止是生死离别的瞬间，更是一个充满了遗憾、委屈、迫害与悲伤的时刻。它给少年鲁迅心里留下的阴影是一辈子无法消除的。

第三个瞬间，是他拿着母亲的八元川资，孤身来到南京求学。他用一种戏谑的文法描述这个不需要学费、在当时属于异类的、没有正经前途的失败者才会选择的学校的景象。那是一种暂时挣脱了家乡，前路却仍然灰暗的复杂心情。我每每读到这里，几乎都要想起15岁后第一次离开家的自己。

第四个瞬间，应该是他在日本寻求文艺活动的日子。彼时他已经退了学，没有工作，每天在公寓学德语，看杂书，思考自己的和中国的出路。他也热络地参与主要由江浙人组成的光复会的活动。这里我印象最深的瞬间，是光复会派他回国刺杀清廷大员的那一刻。鲁迅原本已接受了这一任务，后来出发前，他问布置任务的那人，“如果我被抓住，被砍头，剩下我的母亲，谁负责赡养她呢？”最终他并没有做成刺客。

再往后的瞬间，应当有他四十五岁才敢追求爱情、却仍然受困于传统桎梏的压抑时刻，也有他在北京八道湾尝试努力经营好大家庭、最终却与周作人兄弟失和独自搬至砖塔胡同的凄然景象。以及在人生的最后时刻，彷佛命运的安排，他和当初自己的父亲一样，饱受肺病咳嗽喘气，最终痛苦的离世。父亲为中医所延误，而鲁迅也受到了日本藤野医生的误诊。

单是这样列出几个瞬间，我便觉得他这段人生之路艰辛复杂，充满了苦味。我几乎要怨恨命运对他的不公。但也正是这无法直面的人生，让鲁迅不再是一个单薄的符号，而是每个普通人在平凡生活中也能与之共情的活人。

鲁迅使我想起柏林笔下的维柯，“他始终处境窘迫，一生都在努力养活自己和全家”，“他是一个穷困潦倒、脾气暴躁、多少令人同情的学者”，“尽管他一直渴望被社会认可，但是当他形成了《新科学》的核心观念时，他知道他做出了天才的发现，这个信念一直支撑着他”。

鲁迅在物质生活条件上或许要比维柯好上许多，毕竟他是一个背负着养活大家庭使命的长子，但在精神的困苦上，他远比维柯不幸。他并没有维柯那样自负的信念。鲁迅一生都在怀疑与失望中渡过，哪怕是在启蒙与文学的战场上，他也被矛盾的悲观主义所折磨。他咽下的精神之苦不比任何同时代的人少。

王晓明写完《无法直面的人生》说，“我不再像先前那样崇拜他了，但我自觉在深层的心理和感情距离上，似乎是离他越来越近；我也不再将他视作一个崇高的偶像，他分明就在我们中间，和我们一样在深重的危机中苦苦挣扎。”

我认为这段话，是对鲁迅一生的精神世界，最好的注解。

Introduce fly-castle, a gui relay for flycat

ElectronicMonkey — Fri, 03 Mar 2023 03:51:20 GMT

tonight I just release the very first rough version of fly-castle, it is a very simple desktop app to provide a GUI for your own private backup relay written in Rust. the core relay implementation is forked from scsibug/nostr-rs-relay, I might touch the code there to experiment some ideas later.

Currently, I only build for macOS since that's the only OS on my laptop, but maybe I will find a windows computer to build windows one.

Here is how I would love to use it:

macOS

download the software from here
unzip it, you will get a file named fly-castle
create a folder named my-relay and put fly-castle into the folder
Start the relay by running the following command on your terminal:

cd my-relay
sudo chmod 755 fly-castle
./fly-castle

Open flycat website, click the private backup menu on the left side of the page. add the ws://localhost:8080 to your relay via the right side of the new page.
if you want to stop running your little relay, just close the window of fly-castle, it is that simple.

test markdown

ElectronicMonkey — Wed, 01 Mar 2023 07:14:49 GMT

Markdown syntax guide

Headers

This is a Heading h1

This is a Heading h2

This is a Heading h6

Emphasis

This text will be italic
This will also be italic

This text will be bold
This will also be bold

You can combine them

Lists

Unordered

Item 1
Item 2
Item 2a
Item 2b

Ordered

Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Item 3a
Item 3b

Images

Links

You may be using Markdown Live Preview.

Blockquotes

Markdown is a lightweight markup language with plain-text-formatting syntax, created in 2004 by John Gruber with Aaron Swartz.

Markdown is often used to format readme files, for writing messages in online discussion forums, and to create rich text using a plain text editor.

Tables

Left columns	Right columns
left foo	right foo
left bar	right bar
left baz	right baz

Blocks of code

let message = 'Hello world';
alert(message);

Inline code

This web site is using markedjs/marked.