simplex on Nostr: Thank you. We are just pragmatic, and use what works best for the end users. The ...

Thank you. We are just pragmatic, and use what works best for the end users. The choice of ETH chain for namespace contract is dictated by the existence of good quality ENS contract and necessary UX - even forking ENS it was quite a bit of work to wire it all up.

Would you rather we'd built a custodial solution where we control the names? That seems a dead end. And so far all BTC-adjacent smart-contact networks are not really as trustless as they claim to be (happy to be corrected here) - it's just a hard problem to build a trustless chain. In some remote future SimpleX network itself could provide computation consensus without underlying financial asset, but it's still a lot of work to get there.

The downside of ETH for the end users is that it restricts access and creates friction, which is why it's a test launch, and these names are temporary and free. So you can just wait until we release .simplex namespace - hopefully later this year.

For .simplex namespace we plan to use ETH's account abstraction, which would allow users to have full control over the names and key custody but without using any ETH to pay for it - some entity TBC would sell the name for any form of payment (BTC/XMR/USDT/ETH/fiat) and pay for gas to record the name on-chain (ETH account abstraction has the concept of paymaster, to allow developers/service providers to pay for gas for users' transactions).