The answer would depend on your definition of a 'nostr app', let's assume you mean 'why use login with Nostr if you're not building a micro-blogging social media app?'.
If you need some identity system in your app, you generally have two options:
- build your own system, ask users for email and password, etc
- use big centralized providers like Google/Facebook/Github, etc.
With Nostr you have another option, decentralized and built on cryptographic keys, not a closed centralized database with emails and passwords.
If users login with Nostr you can fetch their profile, their following list, their other public data, to personalize the experience in your app, to train your AIs, etc.
If you app has important 'social' component, then you might have an easier start with Nostr where people already have some social graph.
And you can use Nostr for some social parts (comments, reviews, etc) and use your traditional app backend for the rest of it.
Nostr usage in your app is not all or nothing, it's a wide spectrum.
Nostr user here, absolutely love everything I am seeing. I think Nostr is deeply misunderstood by onlookers and I'd like to share a few things that may help clear things up:
1. Nostr is not a social network - it's a protocol on top of many social networks can be built.
2. Nostr is not limited to the social use cases - and I think that is the killer advantage here. With Nostr, you can integrate various other types of apps to facilitate not only chat but content distribution AND payments. One click payments with zaps.
3. Zaps are going to open up a floodgate of use cases that have a significant advantage over legacy ways of doing things. For example: if you have a music app with multiple recording artists, any time someone zaps or streams their song, all artists involved could get paid instantly.
4. Nostr is a discovery powerhouse that enables content to be easily discovered across platforms without gatekeeping. For creators this is great news because they can just publish in one place and be in all (willingly) participating clients/apps. This alone is a huge development that I don't think too many are grasping just yet.
Yes, it is still clunky at times, but the UX and UI is getting better over time. The development model makes it easy for anyone to jump in and build. You are not limited to any particular way of doing things and can create a custom experience for your audience while having access to the entirety of the protocol.
> Nostr is a discovery powerhouse that enables content to be easily discovered across platforms without gatekeeping. For creators this is great news because they can just publish in one place and be in all (willingly) participating clients/apps.
Beyond the marketing barf, what makes this a "discovery powerhouse"?
From the description, it doesn't sound any different from Mastodon, or having an email newsletter, or publishing your own website.
If I joined today for example, how would I come across something you posted? The user increment is +1, but that's just the potential number of people you could reach. Somebody would have to the equivalent of re-tweeting, for your content to be visible on their profile, and discoverable by others.
There are a few ways to find my content.
1. Follow me
2. Find my note in a hashtag / interest-based relay or in global chat (global will probably not remain for long as the network grows and it gets too noisy / spammy). You'll have interest based relays / tags, however that gets structured. Right now there are no interest-based relays that I know of (yet).
3. Via a boost (equiv. to retweet).
4. Via some sort of ranker. Some clients rank posts by activity.
In general, you have to follow people to discover content you want to see, but it's not a requirement (as outlined above). I definitely think the Nostr experience for people improves dramatically as they follow a few folks.
The teams that I’ve worked on have always just done everything via messages but to touch on your point, we never had check ins in the first place. People are given complete autonomy and are responsible for outcomes. With issue tracking it’s easy to see who is blocking the work but that person usually pushes themselves on without any additional input. The whole thing is rather casual.
Hmm, I haven’t really had issue. The teams that were already async seemed to have figured it out. Perhaps having a smaller team is key? I can see how larger teams may be more difficult to stay on top of.
I've had positive experiences working with agencies, though generally agree that their business model depends on getting people through the door and out another.
I think they key to making it work is to set very clear expectations and set up a rate that continues billing for the provided value.
I have too. I didn’t mean to make it sound like it never works out. There are times when it does. It’s just that when approached by agencies a lot of them turn out to be flakes shopping around. Occasionally you’ll get a serious person on the other end.
There's absolutely no reason that we shouldn't have the capability (in the near future) to generate entire websites with a click of a button and narrated instructions. This is definitely the step in the right direction. Congrats on the progress!
I will say what I’ve said before when this has come up.
For declarative languages, this could be good. This is the “centaur” period (human + computer was better vs just a human or just a computer) that Garry Kasparov touted, before the computer-only part became better. (Chess was much easier to do play against itself adversarially though, harder to simulate how humans would react to your website so you can’t train it MCTS style).
BUT...
For imperative languages with side effects, we have a long way to go. We would need a completely DIFFERENT model of AI, perhaps closer to Cyc than GPT
