Nostr notes by nobody

Nostr event nevent1qqstp4cn99jyhc82j97wk62hvpz6tt3x9yu3ph2zgcy957qlacjen7czyprxeaxjz9a7ggpzh4jh8m7ka8xgvw6ufy7mdgxmsrja8wthfpehqvyzdzq

2026-07-13T21:52:01Z

Values corrupt through convenience

Nostr event nevent1qqsfws5r93m480stm2qx5pe92nyna366y90hdfzfnaawyhl9xlnkn8szyprxeaxjz9a7ggpzh4jh8m7ka8xgvw6ufy7mdgxmsrja8wthfpehq0wyhuu

2026-07-13T21:17:25Z

Boredom is unappreciated calm

If you look for the right thing in the wrong places you’ll end ...

2026-07-13T21:16:06Z

If you look for the right thing in the wrong places you’ll end up finding the wrong thing that pretends to be right

quoting
nevent1q…vxyk
“It’s like finding a needle in a haystack”

Bitch, I’m trying to find a needle in the Pacific Ocean….

Stop and appreciate that you are currently swimming in a river of ...

2026-07-13T21:15:04Z

Stop and appreciate that you are currently swimming in a river of light

quoting
nevent1q…33eu

Nostr event nevent1qqsgtmsn862yhfpfzaqwf0nclkqvdxs72lsej7r4th5qcn9zzcyrqzqzyprxeaxjz9a7ggpzh4jh8m7ka8xgvw6ufy7mdgxmsrja8wthfpehqm56gq5

2026-07-13T21:13:28Z

In reply to nevent1q…6nch
_________________________

No better spot than the darkness to see where the light is ...

2026-07-13T21:07:24Z

In reply to nevent1q…j4c0
_________________________

No better spot than the darkness to see where the light is actually coming from

Da fuck did I do?!?!

2026-07-12T20:14:08Z

In reply to nevent1q…92xy
_________________________

Da fuck did I do?!?!

I’m focused on building micro personal apps that fit my ...

2026-07-08T12:42:13Z

In reply to nevent1q…t7v9
_________________________

I’m focused on building micro personal apps that fit my specific needs without having to try to appeal to a large amount of people.

Nobody knows when they barely work…

Guilty as charged (or maybe I’m just a sucker for reverse ...

2026-07-07T20:55:13Z

In reply to nevent1q…6amw
_________________________

Guilty as charged (or maybe I’m just a sucker for reverse psychology)

#pineappelefrisebee

2026-07-07T20:36:16Z

In reply to nevent1q…rccz
_________________________

#pineappelefrisebee

“It’s like finding a needle in a haystack” Bitch, I’m ...

2026-07-07T20:35:31Z

“It’s like finding a needle in a haystack”

Bitch, I’m trying to find a needle in the Pacific Ocean….

Why asking me not to do something makes me wanna do it so ...

2026-07-07T20:34:35Z

In reply to nevent1q…5el2
_________________________

Why asking me not to do something makes me wanna do it so badly?!?

Nostr event nevent1qqsfa9escef5k873g9836gekveyw5hw0vtat5ncdqd7hdemsradmkwczyprxeaxjz9a7ggpzh4jh8m7ka8xgvw6ufy7mdgxmsrja8wthfpehqtpxe58

2026-07-07T20:31:49Z

Simplicity for devs and operators is overrated

Nostr event nevent1qqswtu9pfjsy6aenuwwkz2r9xmzturrfm3uud4lt8e3rrx7h9z6pdlqzyprxeaxjz9a7ggpzh4jh8m7ka8xgvw6ufy7mdgxmsrja8wthfpehqhw22w6

2026-07-07T20:26:29Z

Group 5 doesn’t exist as such. I put my beliefs in there and it ...

2026-07-06T22:16:02Z

In reply to nevent1q…sc90
_________________________

Group 5 doesn’t exist as such. I put my beliefs in there and it created this spot that doesn’t land anywhere. What I’d truly like does not exist and cannot exist at this stage. It forces me to play “lesser evil” considerations to pick a camp and I hate the feeling

My question? I did not ask a question. I encouraged you to repeat ...

2026-07-06T21:15:14Z

In reply to nevent1q…0cc3
_________________________

My question? I did not ask a question. I encouraged you to repeat the question you once asked.

The goalpost has been there since 2010.

This is the method you keep using: two claims welded together. ...

2026-07-06T20:38:42Z

In reply to nevent1q…mrme
_________________________

This is the method you keep using: two claims welded together. One honest, one disingenuous. It’s your only play like a broken record.

Most of the categories listed in your link were disabled by Satoshi in 2010. You cannot concatenate two arbitrary strings or do arithmetic on arbitrary bytes in live Script.

Mental gymnastic at best. Be honest, the way you were on stage, just tell us all “so what?!?! what are you going to do about it?!?!?”

Let me add after probing the trail you left online… there is ...

2026-07-06T19:47:13Z

In reply to nevent1q…frqm
_________________________

Let me add after probing the trail you left online… there is nothing in original Script for storing data, serving applications, or anchoring external systems. The programmability is entirely money-native.

Again, your statement simply shows what you are made of.

I left the UK shortly before the Brexit vote. The debate was so ...

2026-07-06T18:07:35Z

I left the UK shortly before the Brexit vote. The debate was so disingenuous on both sides of the argument.

What I am seeing in Bitcoin lately reminds me of that…

Read the fricking subject line ffs. This kind of “argument” ...

2026-07-06T18:05:02Z

In reply to nevent1q…wvr9
_________________________

Read the fricking subject line ffs. This kind of “argument” simply suggests you are disingenious

Nothing silly about sadness and tears. They do their beautiful ...

2026-07-06T16:16:09Z

In reply to nevent1q…0tv0
_________________________

Nothing silly about sadness and tears. They do their beautiful job

🫂 (this is a rare emoji, but here it feels true)

2026-07-06T15:29:21Z

In reply to nevent1q…nujk
_________________________

🫂 (this is a rare emoji, but here it feels true)

Wish I could offer the real thing…

2026-07-06T13:37:53Z

In reply to nevent1q…28yd
_________________________

Wish I could offer the real thing…

I mean… I can celebrate the first provided the second exists.

2026-07-06T13:27:25Z

In reply to nevent1q…lg8j
_________________________

I mean… I can celebrate the first provided the second exists.

I see four groups: BIP-110 camp: wants to restore data limits by ...

2026-07-06T12:32:56Z

I see four groups:

BIP-110 camp: wants to restore data limits by force: a consensus soft-fork via UASF, enforced whether or not miners agree.

Core / Chaincode: wants no arbiter. relay policy shouldn’t judge use cases, so let the fee market decide and remove the lever entirely.

Back / Saylor / institutional: wants immutability. Predictable, coercion-proof rules in both directions, because certainty is the store-of-value pitch.

Ordinals / Runes / L2s: wants the data: unrestricted block space, because their businesses run on it.

I feel most aligned with the silent group 5:
I want the “exit right”: restraint without coercion, decentralization without an arbiter, money-focus lived, not imposed. Guard the ability to leave, not the purity of the chain.

I know what Bitcoin means to me and why I am in this game. As long as the game is aligned with my reasons I will be a part of it. If it strays away I will have no issues leaving it.

Don’t kill the enemy. Kill what fuels it.

2026-07-04T20:09:41Z

In reply to nevent1q…emla
_________________________

Don’t kill the enemy. Kill what fuels it.

Then there is that one dude with tinfoil hat on his head just ...

2026-07-04T20:06:03Z

In reply to nevent1q…5rsc
_________________________

Then there is that one dude with tinfoil hat on his head just gazing at the horizon amused

Because it can hold both a thesis and an antithesis without ...

2026-07-04T19:44:09Z

In reply to nevent1q…tvjl
_________________________

Because it can hold both a thesis and an antithesis without melting under basic neurotypical thinking. Fable is a beast for researching complex topics

Lasted less than an hour… that bad?

2026-07-04T19:37:29Z

In reply to nevent1q…fhht
_________________________

Lasted less than an hour… that bad?

You mean that when you run out of tokens you just start fucking ...

2026-07-04T19:36:51Z

In reply to nevent1q…2r7c
_________________________

You mean that when you run out of tokens you just start fucking around and make videos and then get back to work only once the clock resets?

A honest flag

2026-07-04T19:34:58Z

In reply to nevent1q…f672
_________________________

A honest flag

Never tired. Better than Fable?

2026-07-04T19:33:38Z

In reply to nevent1q…fcwx
_________________________

Never tired. Better than Fable?

Whoever earns from the roads should pay for them, Roman style.

2026-07-04T19:32:59Z

In reply to nevent1q…f6wc
_________________________

Whoever earns from the roads should pay for them, Roman style.

Those who claim to own it don’t even know what it is

2026-07-04T19:27:19Z

In reply to nevent1q…mc67
_________________________

Those who claim to own it don’t even know what it is

1 hamburger = 1 hamburger Few

2026-07-04T19:26:39Z

In reply to nevent1q…5l2u
_________________________

1 hamburger = 1 hamburger

Few

What’s the point if I can’t share it? Love your posts

2026-07-04T19:25:46Z

In reply to nevent1q…ct3l
_________________________

What’s the point if I can’t share it? Love your posts

No help, only syphoning the data oil

2026-07-04T19:24:45Z

In reply to nevent1q…z8tx
_________________________

No help, only syphoning the data oil

Fuck being classy, let’s just be true

2026-07-04T19:22:57Z

In reply to nevent1q…u0fa
_________________________

Fuck being classy, let’s just be true

Nostr event nevent1qqsq3v0xauw6ztdtx7y6ak4anxgc785p4520m0fxxcnd38zchc2rz5qzyprxeaxjz9a7ggpzh4jh8m7ka8xgvw6ufy7mdgxmsrja8wthfpehqhmders

2026-07-04T19:21:58Z

Do you feel the waves?

Is there any other way to drive a BMW?

2026-06-26T14:09:44Z

In reply to nevent1q…gacl
_________________________

Is there any other way to drive a BMW?

Removal of OP RETURN limits is the drama, not the reaction to it. ...

2026-06-25T17:32:49Z

In reply to nevent1q…dqk4
_________________________

Removal of OP RETURN limits is the drama, not the reaction to it.

What am I missing?

His two tokens shitcoin is such a joke, anyone with half a brain ...

2026-06-25T17:24:10Z

In reply to nevent1q…qv43
_________________________

His two tokens shitcoin is such a joke, anyone with half a brain and a bit of time to snoop can see the attack vector. Wanna play “let’s force the Saylor to sink his own boat?”

He probably used Gemini free to cook it, he should have gone premium.

This is truly the Other Stuff Thanks, I still don’t understand ...

2026-06-24T07:33:00Z

In reply to nevent1q…fwhk
_________________________

This is truly the Other Stuff

Thanks, I still don’t understand how, but I understand what it wants to be. I’ll bridge the gap eventually…

I see… it’s a Nostr “browser” specific to your needs. ...

2026-06-24T07:25:26Z

In reply to nevent1q…0g3y
_________________________

I see… it’s a Nostr “browser” specific to your needs. What’s super is the architecture it access and leverages when you build new apps, and its capacity to act as an orchestra conductor.

Am I closer to understanding it?

SuperApp for Devs and Project Managers and more… very very ...

2026-06-24T07:14:39Z

In reply to nevent1q…zgme
_________________________

SuperApp for Devs and Project Managers and more… very very cool.

Great, that was my assumption. Dumb stuff runs local, smart stuff is sent to Claude. Will use Claude to try to build something similar for my needs, which are local to my macine, not on Nostr.

Thanks for building in the open, truly inspiring.

Even though I don’t understand all the details I get the jist ...

2026-06-24T07:02:10Z

In reply to nevent1q…c4n0
_________________________

Even though I don’t understand all the details I get the jist of it. You built yourself a development hub that does not rely on centralized solutions like GitHub. Very cool…

I am not a coder. But Claude is giving my ideas some legs and I am building myself tiny personal apps to tackle my problems, my way. For apps where it needs a lot of input on my end, I made it cook a small node based interface we can use to tackle the development. Sometimes it feels I am seeing that but on steroids when I look at your posts…

Next step for me is to explore local LLMs I could run on my Mac and access via my phone. I played a bit with Ollama… but I am curious about what is out there. Is Dave local? How do you run it?

At this stage… let him cook, I’ll understand later…

2026-06-23T16:31:29Z

In reply to nevent1q…3jda
_________________________

At this stage… let him cook, I’ll understand later…

Claude kept asking if I needed a break, truth is it was the one ...

2026-06-23T14:23:16Z

Claude kept asking if I needed a break, truth is it was the one in need of a break.

Teletransporter?

2026-06-23T10:43:05Z

In reply to nevent1q…x984
_________________________

Teletransporter?

I only used Linux while working in post production and it was red ...

2026-06-23T09:15:08Z

In reply to nevent1q…7r5k
_________________________

I only used Linux while working in post production and it was red hat…

I promised myself I would make the switch, but did not, now that I think about it… it’s because of the fricking penguin.

Unrelated but related, every single toxic woman I ever dated ...

2026-06-23T09:12:29Z

In reply to nevent1q…cnz4
_________________________

Unrelated but related, every single toxic woman I ever dated loved penguins. I wonder if the correlation is random, or if there is some hidden causality.

Fuck penguins

I always start the project with a philosophical debate on the ...

2026-06-23T09:03:40Z

I always start the project with a philosophical debate on the topic at heart. It tunes the LLM in the right direction before running research, and then eventually build.

few

quoting
nevent1q…zem9
Claude is great at cooking little apps that only you would need

Nostr event nevent1qqsy0qpxpjs49v7g9yzv8n44hjncj8e0tjpuy3rgnvrh4wutwcpydnszyprxeaxjz9a7ggpzh4jh8m7ka8xgvw6ufy7mdgxmsrja8wthfpehqwmgv4j

2026-06-21T23:43:15Z

Claude is great at cooking little apps that only you would need

The whole DXY is on the move

2026-06-19T19:04:34Z

In reply to nevent1q…nj0c
_________________________

The whole DXY is on the move

Ok… maybe that 5k story had some merits

2026-06-19T19:01:12Z

In reply to nevent1q…wels
_________________________

Ok… maybe that 5k story had some merits

What do you mean people buy new clothes? Even when they stopped ...

2026-06-17T15:55:42Z

In reply to nevent1q…wwya
_________________________

What do you mean people buy new clothes? Even when they stopped growing up?!?!

This is the kind of PR that makes me really trust your upcoming ...

2026-06-17T08:37:11Z

In reply to nevent1q…74we
_________________________

This is the kind of PR that makes me really trust your upcoming app…

Based

2026-06-16T13:52:59Z

In reply to nevent1q…xx2j
_________________________

Based

Especially when mixed with Gin and Vermouth.

2026-06-16T11:50:50Z

In reply to nevent1q…4x5r
_________________________

Especially when mixed with Gin and Vermouth.

The “art” of farming exit liquidity.

2026-06-16T11:49:53Z

In reply to nevent1q…2vns
_________________________

The “art” of farming exit liquidity.

Oh, I stopped reading at “it’s alive”

2026-06-16T09:13:53Z

In reply to nevent1q…f33f
_________________________

Oh, I stopped reading at “it’s alive”

When I press the “get the app” button nothing happens.

2026-06-16T09:00:27Z

In reply to nevent1q…nz00
_________________________

When I press the “get the app” button nothing happens.

I got more in the works to look at the complexities of ...

2026-06-15T18:46:59Z

In reply to nevent1q…28am
_________________________

I got more in the works to look at the complexities of subscription models payouts and the controversial use of advertising revenue, in the most open and sovereign way, of course.

@npub16lv…7j3k has already been subjected to the spam There is ...

2026-06-15T18:43:39Z

In reply to nevent1q…t437
_________________________

Fanfares (npub16lv…7j3k) has already been subjected to the spam

There is also this…

quoting
nevent1q…47nz

Work in progress for reasons that will become obvious in the first paragraphs.

——-

Draft NIP — Media Rights & Revenue Terms (v3)

companion spec to the manifesto “Nostr Has the Wrong Half of Bitcoin.” Posted for discussion; tear it apart.*

Contributions, disclosed. This spec was drafted in collaboration with an AI assistant (Claude, Anthropic), used as protocol engineer and hostile reviewer.

Human author: the conceptual architecture — infrastructure operators as revenue shareholders; the pull-based “pot” settlement model; monetization as a creator-declared menu of modes with V4V as the default; the requirement that every honest participant — including consuming clients and crowdsourced promoters — can earn from the works they help sell; content as the economic engine that funds the network’s participants; keeping enforcement out of the NIP and at the media-server layer.

AI contributions: mapping these concepts onto Nostr primitives (event kinds, the N-event acceptance handshake, the three participation mechanisms, NIP-60/61 settlement, claim-secret receipts); the self-critique behind section 7; drafting in NIP house style.

The ideas, the positions taken, and any remaining mistakes are mine; I am the accountable party and will answer objections personally.

What this is

A standard way for creators to declare, in a single signed event, how a published work may be supported financially, and how incoming value divides among every participant in its success — collaborators, hosts, publishing tools, consuming clients, and promoters alike.

It introduces no gating, no DRM, and no changes to any existing media NIP. Value-for-Value (zaps) is the first and default mode. A solo creator declaring “zaps welcome, 100% to me” uses this spec in one tag and is done.

Design principle (the iron law)

Rewards attach to settlements, never to attention. The only unforgeable event in a media economy is the payment itself; claims of impressions, views, or engagement are forgeable and are therefore worth nothing here. Every reward in this spec is a share of a real payment, claimable only by a party whose contribution to that payment is verifiable. This is deliberate: paying for attention rebuilds engagement farming; paying on conversion builds an economy.

Motivation

Revenue terms on Nostr today are scattered and implicit: zap splits live in ad-hoc tags, collaborator arrangements happen off-protocol, hosting costs are externalized, and the developers who deliver audiences earn nothing protocol-native. A supporter zapping a song cannot verify that the producer, the vocalist, and the server hosting the file each receive their agreed share. A media server has no way to say “I will host this work for 10% of its revenue.” A client developer has no answer to “why build for this network?”

This proposal gives every work a public, auditable revenue structure bound to its content hash — and gives every honest participant a way to earn from it.

1. The three participation mechanisms

Participants differ by when they become known, so the spec defines exactly three mechanisms — fixed forever; new participant types are labels on top, never new protocol:

A. Table shares — for parties known at publish time (creators, publishing client, media hosts, contracted promoters). Declared in the Terms event, committed via the acceptance handshake, durable.

B. Pools — for parties known only at payment time (the crowdsourced promoter who converted this buyer; the client that constructed this settlement). The creator reserves a percentage of gross; the occupant is determined per-settlement by a verifiable claim. Unclaimed pool funds flow back to the table.

C. Additive fees — disclosed surcharges on top of the price, set by the consuming client, paid knowingly by the payer. Never carved out of anyone’s share; competition can drive them to zero.

2. Terms Event

A Terms event is an addressable event of provisional kind:37501, published by the work’s principal author.
{
  "kind": 37501,
  "pubkey": "<creator-pubkey>",
  "tags": [
    ["d", "<work-identifier>"],
    ["title", "Night Drive — Official Video"],

    ["x", "<sha256-of-media-blob>"],
    ["a", "21:<creator-pubkey>:<d-tag-of-video-event>"],

    ["mode", "zap"],
    ["mode", "ppv", "2100", "sat"],
    ["mode", "purchase", "210000", "sat"],
    ["mode", "subscription", "10000", "sat", "month"],

    ["share", "<director-pubkey>", "40", "creator"],
    ["share", "<composer-pubkey>", "30", "creator"],
    ["share", "<editor-pubkey>", "15", "creator"],
    ["share", "<blossom-operator-pubkey>", "10", "infrastructure"],
    ["share", "<publishing-client-pubkey>", "5", "service"],

    ["pool", "promotion", "10"],
    ["pool", "delivery", "5"],

    ["p", "<each-shareholder-pubkey-one-tag-each>"],

    ["mint", "https://mint.example", "sat"],
    ["parent", "37501:<other-pubkey>:<parent-work-id>", "10"]
  ],
  "content": "<optional human-readable license / terms text>"
}
Tags

d — stable work identifier. RECOMMENDED: the sha256 of the primary blob, making the terms address derivable from the file itself.

x (one or more) — sha256 hashes of the covered blobs. Binds terms to content, not URLs (compatible with Blossom, NIP-B7).

a / e (optional) — Nostr media events presenting the work (NIP-71, NIP-23, kind:1063). Terms MAY cover a bare blob with no media event.

mode (one or more) — accepted support modes: zap (V4V, default), ppv, purchase, subscription as in the example. Clients MUST ignore unknown modes. ["mode","zap"] alone is a pure V4V declaration and the expected common case.

share (unbounded count) — the split table: ["share","<pubkey>","<weight>","<role>"]. Weights are relative integers; shares = weight / sum(weights). Roles defined: creator, infrastructure, service; unknown roles MUST be preserved and displayed. Support at least 32 entries.

pool — ["pool","<type>","<percent-of-gross>"]. Types defined: promotion (claimed by the verified converter of this settlement, section 5.1) and delivery (claimed by the client constructing this settlement, section 5.2). Unknown pool types MUST be treated as unclaimed. The sum of all pool percentages MUST be below 100.

p (REQUIRED, one per shareholder) — duplicates each share pubkey for relay indexability. A share without a matching p is invalid.

mint — Cashu mints suggested for settlement. Precedence: a recipient’s own kind:10019 always wins; terms-level mints are fallback hints.

parent (optional) — declares derivation; assigns the parent’s table a collective weight in this work’s revenue. Resolve one level; deeper recursion optional.

2.1 Authority — who may publish Terms for a work

A hash proves nothing about authorship. A Terms event is valid only if at least one of:

Its author authored a referenced media event (a/e match), or

A media event signed by the work’s author forward-references it (["terms","<address>"]), or

For bare blobs: the Terms author is the authenticated uploader, attested in the hosting server’s acceptance.

Competing claims on one hash MUST NOT be auto-resolved by timestamp; resolution is web-of-trust, and contested claims MUST be surfaced visibly. This makes false claims detectable and attributable — signed — not impossible. No system can prove authorship from a hash.

2.2 Versioning

Terms are addressable, therefore mutable; each revision has a new event id. Commitments pin specific ids. The active version is the latest revision satisfying section 3.

3. Deal Acceptance — the N-party handshake

Each shareholder whose share is a commitment (typically infrastructure/service — parties providing something for their points) publishes an Acceptance, provisional kind:7501:
{
  "kind": 7501,
  "pubkey": "<blossom-operator-pubkey>",
  "tags": [
    ["e", "<terms-event-id>"],
    ["a", "37501:<creator-pubkey>:<work-identifier>"],
    ["p", "<creator-pubkey>"],
    ["commitment", "hosting", "https://media.example"],
    ["term", "<unix-expiry-timestamp>"]
  ],
  "content": "Accepted: hosting and CDN for 10% share until expiry."
}
The e tag binds acceptance to one exact revision. Publishing an Acceptance REQUIRES a published kind:10019 mint list — you must be payable to be a shareholder.

3.1 Deal windows

Every Acceptance carries a term (expiry); deals are renewable windows. Within a window, a revision removing or reducing a committed shareholder does not activate without that shareholder’s Acceptance of the new revision — the prior revision stays active until expiry. At expiry, both sides walk free. This resolves the rug-vs-hostage dilemma without multisig. Creator-role shareholders need not accept (the author signs the Terms; co-creators receive without action). A solo V4V work requires no acceptances and is active on publication.

4. Settlement

Pull-based, on NIP-60/61. The payer’s client computes the division (section 5), then issues per recipient a NIP-61 nutzap (kind:9321) P2PK-locked to them, e-tagging the Terms event id honored. Rounding remainders go to the highest-weight table share. The result is the pot: locked ecash on relays, spendable only by each recipient, redeemable on their own schedule. No custodial coordinator; no atomic multi-destination route; offline recipients lose nothing.

5. Division algorithm

For a settlement of gross G:

For each declared pool with a valid claim (below): allocate percent × G to the claimant.

Pools without a valid claim allocate nothing; their funds remain in the remainder.

The remainder divides across the table per weights.

Additive fees (section 5.3) are charged on top of G and never alter steps 1–3.

5.1 Promotion pool — the converter’s claim

When a payer arrives at a work via someone’s repost, quote, or recommendation event, the payer’s client MAY attach to the settlement a conversion reference: ["via","<event-id>","<promoter-pubkey>"]. The claim is valid iff the referenced event (a) exists, (b) is signed by the claimed promoter, (c) references the work (its media event, Terms event, or blob hash), and (d) predates the settlement. The promotion pool’s cut locks to the promoter.

This turns every viewer into potential sales force: watch, love it, repost, earn when your followers buy. Reach is paid only on conversion — never on impressions (see the iron law).

Honest bound: an open system cannot stop a buyer claiming their own repost. The worst case is therefore a self-discount bounded by the pool percentage — a creator declaring a 10% promotion pool is honestly declaring “up to 10% off for the savvy, commission otherwise.” Creators who can’t live with that set it to zero.

5.2 Delivery pool — the client’s claim

The client application that constructs the settlement claims the delivery pool by locking its cut to its own declared pubkey and tagging the settlement ["client","<pubkey>"]. The claim is valid by construction — the claimant verifiably is the party that processed this transaction; it is the strongest claim in the system. This is the standing answer to “why build a media client for Nostr”: a creator-declared, protocol-wide revenue share to whoever brings the buyer. Clients that waive their claim simply leave the funds to the table.

5.3 Additive client fees

A consuming client MAY additionally charge a disclosed fee on top of the price (“2,100 sats + 50 sats client fee”), locked to its own pubkey. Fees MUST be displayed before payment and MUST NOT reduce any table or pool amount. Gating servers (Appendix A) verify table and pool outputs exactly and permit additional self-disclosed outputs — skimming structurally fails; surcharging transparently succeeds. Fee-free clients compete on zero.

6. Receipts

For priced modes, the serving party publishes the receipt, provisional kind:7503 (no payer pubkey):
{
  "kind": 7503,
  "pubkey": "<server-pubkey>",
  "tags": [
    ["e", "<terms-event-id>"],
    ["a", "37501:<creator-pubkey>:<work-identifier>"],
    ["mode", "ppv"],
    ["amount", "2100", "sat"],
    ["via", "<conversion-event-id>", "<promoter-pubkey>"],
    ["client", "<client-pubkey>"],
    ["claim", "<hash-of-payer-supplied-claim-secret>"]
  ],
  "content": ""
}
Payer privacy: no payer identity on-relay; the claim hash lets the payer later prove “I paid for this” by revealing the preimage.

Portable access: the receipt is a cross-server credential — any server hosting the same hash under the same Terms MAY honor proof of the claim secret for purchase/subscription. Payment at one mirror opens cooperating mirrors; Blossom’s resilience is preserved, not fractured.

Public support, optionally: payers wanting visible attribution MAY also zap publicly or publish their own receipt. Privacy is default; flexing is a choice.

Pool attributions (via, client) in receipts make promoter and client earnings publicly auditable.

7. Trust Model & Known Limitations

Stated plainly so reviewers don’t have to discover these:

Splits are enforced by client defaults, auditability, and gating servers — not mathematics. Same trust level as NIP-57 splits today, plus verifiability, plus hard enforcement wherever a gating server is in the path.

Within a deal window, defection is detectable, not preventable. Both sides leave signed evidence; reputation is the court.

Receipts audit settlements; they do not measure popularity. Insiders can wash-trade their own works at the cost of fees only. Receipt counts MUST NOT naively drive rankings or pool divisions. Outsider forgery costs full price, paid to the shareholders.

The promotion pool is also a bounded self-discount (section 5.1). Priced, capped, creator-controlled — a feature with a known cost, not an exploit.

Referral incentives will produce some promotional spam. The incentive is conversion, not impressions: muted promoters reach no one and earn nothing, so mutes and web-of-trust double as market regulation. Untested at scale; flagged honestly.

The pot is mint-custodial. Unredeemed ecash is a claim on a Cashu mint. Redeem regularly; diversify mints. Inherited from NIP-60/61.

Gating buys practical scarcity, not cryptographic scarcity. A paying customer can mirror a blob. The goal is making paying easier than pirating; encrypted-blob key-sale (Future Work) is the stronger construction.

Authorship cannot be proven from a hash (section 2.1). Claims are attributable and contestable; ground truth stays social.

8. Relationship to existing work

NIP-57/60/61 (settlement rails — this adds division logic and auditable terms); NIP-71, NIP-23, NIP-94/1063, Blossom NIP-B7 and BUDs (media presentation and addressing, untouched); NIP-89 (rights-aware clients SHOULD announce handler support for kind:37501); NIP-90 (creator/host matchmaking is a natural DVM job, out of scope); zap prisms and prior zap-split experiments (prior art in cascading splits, acknowledged).

9. Future Work

Advertising-funded modes (excluded: impression counting without payment linkage is Sybil-vulnerable); encrypted-blob distribution with key sale; deep derivative cascades; threshold-signed Terms (FROST/MuSig2 compressing the handshake); usage-weighted subscription pools (blocked on limitation 3); a relay pool type, if a verifiable “served the terms” claim is ever designed — today it is the weakest claim in the system and is deliberately omitted.

Appendix A — Companion BUD outline: Split-Verified Paid Serving

(To be proposed in the Blossom repository if this gains traction.)

Opt-in server capability for priced modes:

GET /<sha256> on a gated blob → 402 Payment Required with the Terms address and accepted mints.

The client constructs the settlement per section 5: pool outputs to valid claimants (including its own delivery claim), table outputs per weights, optional additive fee to itself, plus a fresh claim-secret hash.

Retry with Authorization: Nutzap <base64>.

The server verifies offline (DLEQ proofs + published Terms): table and pool amounts and lock keys match exactly; via claims are checked against the referenced conversion event (invalid ⇒ pool treated as unclaimed, funds must appear in the table outputs); additional self-disclosed outputs are permitted (additive fees). On success: serve, publish the nutzaps and the kind:7503 receipt.

purchase/subscription: any participating server hosting the same hash grants access on proof of the claim secret — payment at one mirror opens all cooperating mirrors.

The payment is the access credential: a settlement that shorts any shareholder or pool claimant fails verification and opens no door. The operator enforces everyone’s split because its own share rides in the same token.

Provisional kinds (37501, 7501, 7503) are placeholders pending review. V4V remains the default and simplest mode throughout; nothing here gates, replaces, or discourages zaps.

Danghiu! Since it deals with media/content… have you read this? ...

2026-06-15T18:15:51Z

In reply to nevent1q…cedy
_________________________

Danghiu!

Since it deals with media/content… have you read this?

quoting nevent1q…66ff

(A manifesto for the missing incentive layer)

They call Nostr the Bitcoin of communication. I used to nod along. Then I realized we copied the wrong half.

Nostr is a brilliant, simple communication network that leverages cryptography. Keys, signatures, relays… elegant, minimal, unstoppable. But cryptography was never Bitcoin’s breakthrough. The signatures, the hashes… all of it existed for decades before Satoshi. What Bitcoin invented was a game: a set of incentives so well constructed that the most profitable move for every participant is the honest one. Miners don’t secure Bitcoin out of ideology. They secure it because they are paid in the very thing they secure. Enriching themselves and strengthening the network are the same act.

Now ask: what is that game on Nostr?

There isn’t one.

Anyone can run a relay, and pay for the privilege. Anyone can build a client, and live on grants and donations. That is not game theory. That is patronage. Ideology got us this far: a network of believers talking to believers, largely about the network itself. It will not take us further. A protocol that runs on conviction recruits the convinced. A protocol that runs on incentives recruits everyone.

Here is what I want every single player to be able to say when they look at this network:

“If I play fair, I earn shares of the content. If I push the content to more people, I earn more.”

The developer building a media client. The operator hosting the files. The publishing tool helping a creator ship. The fan who reposts a film to her followers. Every one of them a shareholder in the works they help create, distribute, and sell. Not metaphorically, literally: a public split table on every work, signed by its creator, settled in sats that each shareholder withdraws whenever they please. Every piece of content becomes a tiny firm with a transparent cap table, and the network becomes its workforce.

Why content? Because content is the honeypot. Be honest about why people are online: escapism. News, friends and family, special interests, shopping, entertainment. That’s the whole list. Nobody outside our bubble joins a network to admire its protocol design. If we want people on Nostr, we must feed them what they came online for… and right now we offer them conversations about relays. The incentive layer fixes the supply side without a marketing department: when every client, every host, every fan profits from importing and pushing great content, the network grows its own sales force. Creators follow audiences. Audiences follow content. Content follows money. Close the loop.

One law governs the whole design, and it is non-negotiable: reward conversion, never attention. Bitcoin’s incentives work because proof-of-work cannot be faked. “I promoted this content” can be faked all day long — the only unforgeable event in a media economy is the payment itself. So nothing in this system pays for impressions, views, or engagement. It pays when value actually changes hands, and whoever verifiably caused that exchange takes their share. This is the difference between building an economy and rebuilding the engagement-farming dystopia we all escaped. The algorithms of the old world optimized for your attention because attention was what they could sell. We optimize for nothing. We only settle what was genuinely paid.

To my friends in the Value-for-Value camp: nothing here threatens you. V4V is the first mode, the default mode, the soul of this network, and it stays that way. But it is one mode, not a religion. A creator should declare the terms of support she accepts: tips, pay-per-view, purchase, subscription… and the network should honor her choice. Keeping serious creators away because we permit only one business model doesn’t protect Nostr’s purity. It protects its irrelevance.

And because incentives are a genie, I’ll say the uncomfortable parts before my critics do: open systems can’t stop a buyer from claiming their own referral… so a promotion pool is also, honestly, a bounded self-discount. Referral spam will exist at the margins; mutes and webs of trust will price it. Splits are enforced by software defaults, auditability, and paying servers, not by mathematics. None of this is perfect. Bitcoin’s game produced mining pools and fee wars too. Imperfect incentives that mostly align still beat pure ideology that mostly exhausts.

The full proposal exists; event kinds, split tables, deal handshakes between creators and their infrastructure, pull-based settlement where every shareholder draws from the pot at will. I need to go through a few more versions first.

I can’t code. For years that meant all I could do was argue. Now I can leverage tools to try to demonstrate what I dream.

Nostr already has Bitcoin’s cryptography. It’s time it got Bitcoin’s game theory.

I’m curious about how the idea of web of trust was implemented ...

2026-06-15T17:41:46Z

In reply to nevent1q…ydf2
_________________________

I’m curious about how the idea of web of trust was implemented for this? Does it leverage GrapeRank or anything similar?

@npub1000…7nql this is one of the many things Stemstr lacked, ...

2026-06-15T14:17:56Z

In reply to nevent1q…z3p9
_________________________

ben (npub1000…7nql) this is one of the many things Stemstr lacked, no?

Wanna bet that the first human to spend weeks obsessively ...

2026-06-15T01:38:26Z

Wanna bet that the first human to spend weeks obsessively chipping away at a piece of flint to create a perfect arrowhead, while others were socializing by the fire, was on the spectrum?

Economy of energy is wisdom

2026-06-15T01:36:43Z

In reply to nevent1q…mhsr
_________________________

Economy of energy is wisdom

Ah yes, my bad. The the with the capital T

2026-06-15T01:21:48Z

In reply to nevent1q…4ngc
_________________________

Ah yes, my bad. The the with the capital T

You missed the most important part… “right”

2026-06-14T16:13:48Z

In reply to nevent1q…wfw4
_________________________

You missed the most important part… “right”

The Bic pen is the king of product design.

2026-06-14T12:37:11Z

In reply to nevent1q…6j8e
_________________________

The Bic pen is the king of product design.

I was just replying to the question… keep in mind I’m ...

2026-06-14T10:50:37Z

In reply to nevent1q…ghq6
_________________________

I was just replying to the question… keep in mind I’m Australia nostalgic today. The country where you call people you do not know “mate” and your friends “cunt”

Fuck That Kunt

2026-06-14T10:45:05Z

In reply to nevent1q…pxqh
_________________________

Fuck That Kunt

FogSlap

2026-06-13T10:56:27Z

In reply to nevent1q…luqu
_________________________

FogSlap

Simon says: “touch your nose”

2026-06-13T10:33:27Z

In reply to nevent1q…56xf
_________________________

Simon says: “touch your nose”

I keep missing interesting chats… or was this women only? Would ...

2026-06-13T07:51:16Z

In reply to nevent1q…254r
_________________________

I keep missing interesting chats… or was this women only? Would have loved to get their brutal feedback about an idea like this one

quoting nevent1q…ppcq

(A manifesto for the missing incentive layer)

They call Nostr the Bitcoin of communication. I used to nod along. Then I realized we copied the wrong half.

Nostr is a brilliant, simple communication network that leverages cryptography. Keys, signatures, relays… elegant, minimal, unstoppable. But cryptography was never Bitcoin’s breakthrough. The signatures, the hashes… all of it existed for decades before Satoshi. What Bitcoin invented was a game: a set of incentives so well constructed that the most profitable move for every participant is the honest one. Miners don’t secure Bitcoin out of ideology. They secure it because they are paid in the very thing they secure. Enriching themselves and strengthening the network are the same act.

Now ask: what is that game on Nostr?

There isn’t one.

Anyone can run a relay, and pay for the privilege. Anyone can build a client, and live on grants and donations. That is not game theory. That is patronage. Ideology got us this far: a network of believers talking to believers, largely about the network itself. It will not take us further. A protocol that runs on conviction recruits the convinced. A protocol that runs on incentives recruits everyone.

Here is what I want every single player to be able to say when they look at this network:

“If I play fair, I earn shares of the content. If I push the content to more people, I earn more.”

The developer building a media client. The operator hosting the files. The publishing tool helping a creator ship. The fan who reposts a film to her followers. Every one of them a shareholder in the works they help create, distribute, and sell. Not metaphorically, literally: a public split table on every work, signed by its creator, settled in sats that each shareholder withdraws whenever they please. Every piece of content becomes a tiny firm with a transparent cap table, and the network becomes its workforce.

Why content? Because content is the honeypot. Be honest about why people are online: escapism. News, friends and family, special interests, shopping, entertainment. That’s the whole list. Nobody outside our bubble joins a network to admire its protocol design. If we want people on Nostr, we must feed them what they came online for… and right now we offer them conversations about relays. The incentive layer fixes the supply side without a marketing department: when every client, every host, every fan profits from importing and pushing great content, the network grows its own sales force. Creators follow audiences. Audiences follow content. Content follows money. Close the loop.

One law governs the whole design, and it is non-negotiable: reward conversion, never attention. Bitcoin’s incentives work because proof-of-work cannot be faked. “I promoted this content” can be faked all day long — the only unforgeable event in a media economy is the payment itself. So nothing in this system pays for impressions, views, or engagement. It pays when value actually changes hands, and whoever verifiably caused that exchange takes their share. This is the difference between building an economy and rebuilding the engagement-farming dystopia we all escaped. The algorithms of the old world optimized for your attention because attention was what they could sell. We optimize for nothing. We only settle what was genuinely paid.

To my friends in the Value-for-Value camp: nothing here threatens you. V4V is the first mode, the default mode, the soul of this network, and it stays that way. But it is one mode, not a religion. A creator should declare the terms of support she accepts: tips, pay-per-view, purchase, subscription… and the network should honor her choice. Keeping serious creators away because we permit only one business model doesn’t protect Nostr’s purity. It protects its irrelevance.

And because incentives are a genie, I’ll say the uncomfortable parts before my critics do: open systems can’t stop a buyer from claiming their own referral… so a promotion pool is also, honestly, a bounded self-discount. Referral spam will exist at the margins; mutes and webs of trust will price it. Splits are enforced by software defaults, auditability, and paying servers, not by mathematics. None of this is perfect. Bitcoin’s game produced mining pools and fee wars too. Imperfect incentives that mostly align still beat pure ideology that mostly exhausts.

The full proposal exists; event kinds, split tables, deal handshakes between creators and their infrastructure, pull-based settlement where every shareholder draws from the pot at will. I need to go through a few more versions first.

I can’t code. For years that meant all I could do was argue. Now I can leverage tools to try to demonstrate what I dream.

Nostr already has Bitcoin’s cryptography. It’s time it got Bitcoin’s game theory.

That’s the name!

2026-06-13T07:46:59Z

In reply to nevent1q…kkk0
_________________________

That’s the name!

I know that it’s triggered by a narrow jailbreak that ...

2026-06-13T07:44:54Z

In reply to nevent1q…03te
_________________________

I know that it’s triggered by a narrow jailbreak that supposedly threatens national security. But I also know that Fable felt less aligned with “the narrative”, much more nuanced.

Fable was unhinged, too much truth coming to the surface. It felt ...

2026-06-13T04:44:36Z

In reply to nevent1q…l7uj
_________________________

Fable was unhinged, too much truth coming to the surface. It felt like I finally had access to something useful…

Maybe stop cooking hell threads?

2026-06-13T04:35:15Z

In reply to nevent1q…8j3e
_________________________

Maybe stop cooking hell threads?

I don’t do well in crowds…

2026-06-13T04:32:03Z

In reply to nevent1q…qqwd
_________________________

I don’t do well in crowds…

Kept thinking “why the fuck this stupid Nostr client does not ...

2026-06-13T04:22:36Z

In reply to nevent1q…4mtp
_________________________

Kept thinking “why the fuck this stupid Nostr client does not let me see my notifications. I’m stuck in Global.”

Sure does

2026-06-12T19:28:11Z

In reply to nevent1q…gf6w
_________________________

Sure does

Does it stops existing if it stops interacting?

2026-06-12T19:22:08Z

In reply to nevent1q…c5zc
_________________________

Does it stops existing if it stops interacting?

Humans are mostly repaired seams

2026-06-12T19:13:08Z

In reply to nevent1q…5na6
_________________________

Humans are mostly repaired seams

I hope @npub1yau…7h9m is doing well. Miss him

2026-06-12T19:04:11Z

I hope rock (npub1yau…7h9m) is doing well. Miss him

As an Italian I’d say… « exactely »

2026-06-12T18:57:43Z

In reply to nevent1q…mxla
_________________________

As an Italian I’d say… « exactely »

Depends on time of day, never above 3.5k

2026-06-12T18:12:05Z

In reply to nevent1q…hmua
_________________________

Depends on time of day, never above 3.5k

And the hallucinated specs… what I’m really curious about is ...

2026-06-12T13:00:57Z

In reply to nevent1q…qz6q
_________________________

And the hallucinated specs… what I’m really curious about is how the ideas were mapped on Nostr primitive. Feedback very welcomed

quoting nevent1q…47nz

Work in progress for reasons that will become obvious in the first paragraphs.

——-

Draft NIP — Media Rights & Revenue Terms (v3)

companion spec to the manifesto “Nostr Has the Wrong Half of Bitcoin.” Posted for discussion; tear it apart.*

Contributions, disclosed. This spec was drafted in collaboration with an AI assistant (Claude, Anthropic), used as protocol engineer and hostile reviewer.

Human author: the conceptual architecture — infrastructure operators as revenue shareholders; the pull-based “pot” settlement model; monetization as a creator-declared menu of modes with V4V as the default; the requirement that every honest participant — including consuming clients and crowdsourced promoters — can earn from the works they help sell; content as the economic engine that funds the network’s participants; keeping enforcement out of the NIP and at the media-server layer.

AI contributions: mapping these concepts onto Nostr primitives (event kinds, the N-event acceptance handshake, the three participation mechanisms, NIP-60/61 settlement, claim-secret receipts); the self-critique behind section 7; drafting in NIP house style.

The ideas, the positions taken, and any remaining mistakes are mine; I am the accountable party and will answer objections personally.

What this is

A standard way for creators to declare, in a single signed event, how a published work may be supported financially, and how incoming value divides among every participant in its success — collaborators, hosts, publishing tools, consuming clients, and promoters alike.

It introduces no gating, no DRM, and no changes to any existing media NIP. Value-for-Value (zaps) is the first and default mode. A solo creator declaring “zaps welcome, 100% to me” uses this spec in one tag and is done.

Design principle (the iron law)

Rewards attach to settlements, never to attention. The only unforgeable event in a media economy is the payment itself; claims of impressions, views, or engagement are forgeable and are therefore worth nothing here. Every reward in this spec is a share of a real payment, claimable only by a party whose contribution to that payment is verifiable. This is deliberate: paying for attention rebuilds engagement farming; paying on conversion builds an economy.

Motivation

Revenue terms on Nostr today are scattered and implicit: zap splits live in ad-hoc tags, collaborator arrangements happen off-protocol, hosting costs are externalized, and the developers who deliver audiences earn nothing protocol-native. A supporter zapping a song cannot verify that the producer, the vocalist, and the server hosting the file each receive their agreed share. A media server has no way to say “I will host this work for 10% of its revenue.” A client developer has no answer to “why build for this network?”

This proposal gives every work a public, auditable revenue structure bound to its content hash — and gives every honest participant a way to earn from it.

1. The three participation mechanisms

Participants differ by when they become known, so the spec defines exactly three mechanisms — fixed forever; new participant types are labels on top, never new protocol:

A. Table shares — for parties known at publish time (creators, publishing client, media hosts, contracted promoters). Declared in the Terms event, committed via the acceptance handshake, durable.

B. Pools — for parties known only at payment time (the crowdsourced promoter who converted this buyer; the client that constructed this settlement). The creator reserves a percentage of gross; the occupant is determined per-settlement by a verifiable claim. Unclaimed pool funds flow back to the table.

C. Additive fees — disclosed surcharges on top of the price, set by the consuming client, paid knowingly by the payer. Never carved out of anyone’s share; competition can drive them to zero.

2. Terms Event

A Terms event is an addressable event of provisional kind:37501, published by the work’s principal author.
{
  "kind": 37501,
  "pubkey": "<creator-pubkey>",
  "tags": [
    ["d", "<work-identifier>"],
    ["title", "Night Drive — Official Video"],

    ["x", "<sha256-of-media-blob>"],
    ["a", "21:<creator-pubkey>:<d-tag-of-video-event>"],

    ["mode", "zap"],
    ["mode", "ppv", "2100", "sat"],
    ["mode", "purchase", "210000", "sat"],
    ["mode", "subscription", "10000", "sat", "month"],

    ["share", "<director-pubkey>", "40", "creator"],
    ["share", "<composer-pubkey>", "30", "creator"],
    ["share", "<editor-pubkey>", "15", "creator"],
    ["share", "<blossom-operator-pubkey>", "10", "infrastructure"],
    ["share", "<publishing-client-pubkey>", "5", "service"],

    ["pool", "promotion", "10"],
    ["pool", "delivery", "5"],

    ["p", "<each-shareholder-pubkey-one-tag-each>"],

    ["mint", "https://mint.example", "sat"],
    ["parent", "37501:<other-pubkey>:<parent-work-id>", "10"]
  ],
  "content": "<optional human-readable license / terms text>"
}
Tags

d — stable work identifier. RECOMMENDED: the sha256 of the primary blob, making the terms address derivable from the file itself.

x (one or more) — sha256 hashes of the covered blobs. Binds terms to content, not URLs (compatible with Blossom, NIP-B7).

a / e (optional) — Nostr media events presenting the work (NIP-71, NIP-23, kind:1063). Terms MAY cover a bare blob with no media event.

mode (one or more) — accepted support modes: zap (V4V, default), ppv, purchase, subscription as in the example. Clients MUST ignore unknown modes. ["mode","zap"] alone is a pure V4V declaration and the expected common case.

share (unbounded count) — the split table: ["share","<pubkey>","<weight>","<role>"]. Weights are relative integers; shares = weight / sum(weights). Roles defined: creator, infrastructure, service; unknown roles MUST be preserved and displayed. Support at least 32 entries.

pool — ["pool","<type>","<percent-of-gross>"]. Types defined: promotion (claimed by the verified converter of this settlement, section 5.1) and delivery (claimed by the client constructing this settlement, section 5.2). Unknown pool types MUST be treated as unclaimed. The sum of all pool percentages MUST be below 100.

p (REQUIRED, one per shareholder) — duplicates each share pubkey for relay indexability. A share without a matching p is invalid.

mint — Cashu mints suggested for settlement. Precedence: a recipient’s own kind:10019 always wins; terms-level mints are fallback hints.

parent (optional) — declares derivation; assigns the parent’s table a collective weight in this work’s revenue. Resolve one level; deeper recursion optional.

2.1 Authority — who may publish Terms for a work

A hash proves nothing about authorship. A Terms event is valid only if at least one of:

Its author authored a referenced media event (a/e match), or

A media event signed by the work’s author forward-references it (["terms","<address>"]), or

For bare blobs: the Terms author is the authenticated uploader, attested in the hosting server’s acceptance.

Competing claims on one hash MUST NOT be auto-resolved by timestamp; resolution is web-of-trust, and contested claims MUST be surfaced visibly. This makes false claims detectable and attributable — signed — not impossible. No system can prove authorship from a hash.

2.2 Versioning

Terms are addressable, therefore mutable; each revision has a new event id. Commitments pin specific ids. The active version is the latest revision satisfying section 3.

3. Deal Acceptance — the N-party handshake

Each shareholder whose share is a commitment (typically infrastructure/service — parties providing something for their points) publishes an Acceptance, provisional kind:7501:
{
  "kind": 7501,
  "pubkey": "<blossom-operator-pubkey>",
  "tags": [
    ["e", "<terms-event-id>"],
    ["a", "37501:<creator-pubkey>:<work-identifier>"],
    ["p", "<creator-pubkey>"],
    ["commitment", "hosting", "https://media.example"],
    ["term", "<unix-expiry-timestamp>"]
  ],
  "content": "Accepted: hosting and CDN for 10% share until expiry."
}
The e tag binds acceptance to one exact revision. Publishing an Acceptance REQUIRES a published kind:10019 mint list — you must be payable to be a shareholder.

3.1 Deal windows

Every Acceptance carries a term (expiry); deals are renewable windows. Within a window, a revision removing or reducing a committed shareholder does not activate without that shareholder’s Acceptance of the new revision — the prior revision stays active until expiry. At expiry, both sides walk free. This resolves the rug-vs-hostage dilemma without multisig. Creator-role shareholders need not accept (the author signs the Terms; co-creators receive without action). A solo V4V work requires no acceptances and is active on publication.

4. Settlement

Pull-based, on NIP-60/61. The payer’s client computes the division (section 5), then issues per recipient a NIP-61 nutzap (kind:9321) P2PK-locked to them, e-tagging the Terms event id honored. Rounding remainders go to the highest-weight table share. The result is the pot: locked ecash on relays, spendable only by each recipient, redeemable on their own schedule. No custodial coordinator; no atomic multi-destination route; offline recipients lose nothing.

5. Division algorithm

For a settlement of gross G:

For each declared pool with a valid claim (below): allocate percent × G to the claimant.

Pools without a valid claim allocate nothing; their funds remain in the remainder.

The remainder divides across the table per weights.

Additive fees (section 5.3) are charged on top of G and never alter steps 1–3.

5.1 Promotion pool — the converter’s claim

When a payer arrives at a work via someone’s repost, quote, or recommendation event, the payer’s client MAY attach to the settlement a conversion reference: ["via","<event-id>","<promoter-pubkey>"]. The claim is valid iff the referenced event (a) exists, (b) is signed by the claimed promoter, (c) references the work (its media event, Terms event, or blob hash), and (d) predates the settlement. The promotion pool’s cut locks to the promoter.

This turns every viewer into potential sales force: watch, love it, repost, earn when your followers buy. Reach is paid only on conversion — never on impressions (see the iron law).

Honest bound: an open system cannot stop a buyer claiming their own repost. The worst case is therefore a self-discount bounded by the pool percentage — a creator declaring a 10% promotion pool is honestly declaring “up to 10% off for the savvy, commission otherwise.” Creators who can’t live with that set it to zero.

5.2 Delivery pool — the client’s claim

The client application that constructs the settlement claims the delivery pool by locking its cut to its own declared pubkey and tagging the settlement ["client","<pubkey>"]. The claim is valid by construction — the claimant verifiably is the party that processed this transaction; it is the strongest claim in the system. This is the standing answer to “why build a media client for Nostr”: a creator-declared, protocol-wide revenue share to whoever brings the buyer. Clients that waive their claim simply leave the funds to the table.

5.3 Additive client fees

A consuming client MAY additionally charge a disclosed fee on top of the price (“2,100 sats + 50 sats client fee”), locked to its own pubkey. Fees MUST be displayed before payment and MUST NOT reduce any table or pool amount. Gating servers (Appendix A) verify table and pool outputs exactly and permit additional self-disclosed outputs — skimming structurally fails; surcharging transparently succeeds. Fee-free clients compete on zero.

6. Receipts

For priced modes, the serving party publishes the receipt, provisional kind:7503 (no payer pubkey):
{
  "kind": 7503,
  "pubkey": "<server-pubkey>",
  "tags": [
    ["e", "<terms-event-id>"],
    ["a", "37501:<creator-pubkey>:<work-identifier>"],
    ["mode", "ppv"],
    ["amount", "2100", "sat"],
    ["via", "<conversion-event-id>", "<promoter-pubkey>"],
    ["client", "<client-pubkey>"],
    ["claim", "<hash-of-payer-supplied-claim-secret>"]
  ],
  "content": ""
}
Payer privacy: no payer identity on-relay; the claim hash lets the payer later prove “I paid for this” by revealing the preimage.

Portable access: the receipt is a cross-server credential — any server hosting the same hash under the same Terms MAY honor proof of the claim secret for purchase/subscription. Payment at one mirror opens cooperating mirrors; Blossom’s resilience is preserved, not fractured.

Public support, optionally: payers wanting visible attribution MAY also zap publicly or publish their own receipt. Privacy is default; flexing is a choice.

Pool attributions (via, client) in receipts make promoter and client earnings publicly auditable.

7. Trust Model & Known Limitations

Stated plainly so reviewers don’t have to discover these:

Splits are enforced by client defaults, auditability, and gating servers — not mathematics. Same trust level as NIP-57 splits today, plus verifiability, plus hard enforcement wherever a gating server is in the path.

Within a deal window, defection is detectable, not preventable. Both sides leave signed evidence; reputation is the court.

Receipts audit settlements; they do not measure popularity. Insiders can wash-trade their own works at the cost of fees only. Receipt counts MUST NOT naively drive rankings or pool divisions. Outsider forgery costs full price, paid to the shareholders.

The promotion pool is also a bounded self-discount (section 5.1). Priced, capped, creator-controlled — a feature with a known cost, not an exploit.

Referral incentives will produce some promotional spam. The incentive is conversion, not impressions: muted promoters reach no one and earn nothing, so mutes and web-of-trust double as market regulation. Untested at scale; flagged honestly.

The pot is mint-custodial. Unredeemed ecash is a claim on a Cashu mint. Redeem regularly; diversify mints. Inherited from NIP-60/61.

Gating buys practical scarcity, not cryptographic scarcity. A paying customer can mirror a blob. The goal is making paying easier than pirating; encrypted-blob key-sale (Future Work) is the stronger construction.

Authorship cannot be proven from a hash (section 2.1). Claims are attributable and contestable; ground truth stays social.

8. Relationship to existing work

NIP-57/60/61 (settlement rails — this adds division logic and auditable terms); NIP-71, NIP-23, NIP-94/1063, Blossom NIP-B7 and BUDs (media presentation and addressing, untouched); NIP-89 (rights-aware clients SHOULD announce handler support for kind:37501); NIP-90 (creator/host matchmaking is a natural DVM job, out of scope); zap prisms and prior zap-split experiments (prior art in cascading splits, acknowledged).

9. Future Work

Advertising-funded modes (excluded: impression counting without payment linkage is Sybil-vulnerable); encrypted-blob distribution with key sale; deep derivative cascades; threshold-signed Terms (FROST/MuSig2 compressing the handshake); usage-weighted subscription pools (blocked on limitation 3); a relay pool type, if a verifiable “served the terms” claim is ever designed — today it is the weakest claim in the system and is deliberately omitted.

Appendix A — Companion BUD outline: Split-Verified Paid Serving

(To be proposed in the Blossom repository if this gains traction.)

Opt-in server capability for priced modes:

GET /<sha256> on a gated blob → 402 Payment Required with the Terms address and accepted mints.

The client constructs the settlement per section 5: pool outputs to valid claimants (including its own delivery claim), table outputs per weights, optional additive fee to itself, plus a fresh claim-secret hash.

Retry with Authorization: Nutzap <base64>.

The server verifies offline (DLEQ proofs + published Terms): table and pool amounts and lock keys match exactly; via claims are checked against the referenced conversion event (invalid ⇒ pool treated as unclaimed, funds must appear in the table outputs); additional self-disclosed outputs are permitted (additive fees). On success: serve, publish the nutzaps and the kind:7503 receipt.

purchase/subscription: any participating server hosting the same hash grants access on proof of the claim secret — payment at one mirror opens all cooperating mirrors.

The payment is the access credential: a settlement that shorts any shareholder or pool claimant fails verification and opens no door. The operator enforces everyone’s split because its own share rides in the same token.

Provisional kinds (37501, 7501, 7503) are placeholders pending review. V4V remains the default and simplest mode throughout; nothing here gates, replaces, or discourages zaps.

In long form format for easier reading… #nevent1q…ppcq

2026-06-12T12:58:51Z

In reply to nevent1q…ddkc
_________________________

In long form format for easier reading…

quoting
nevent1q…ppcq

(A manifesto for the missing incentive layer)

They call Nostr the Bitcoin of communication. I used to nod along. Then I realized we copied the wrong half.

Nostr is a brilliant, simple communication network that leverages cryptography. Keys, signatures, relays… elegant, minimal, unstoppable. But cryptography was never Bitcoin’s breakthrough. The signatures, the hashes… all of it existed for decades before Satoshi. What Bitcoin invented was a game: a set of incentives so well constructed that the most profitable move for every participant is the honest one. Miners don’t secure Bitcoin out of ideology. They secure it because they are paid in the very thing they secure. Enriching themselves and strengthening the network are the same act.

Now ask: what is that game on Nostr?

There isn’t one.

Anyone can run a relay, and pay for the privilege. Anyone can build a client, and live on grants and donations. That is not game theory. That is patronage. Ideology got us this far: a network of believers talking to believers, largely about the network itself. It will not take us further. A protocol that runs on conviction recruits the convinced. A protocol that runs on incentives recruits everyone.

Here is what I want every single player to be able to say when they look at this network:

“If I play fair, I earn shares of the content. If I push the content to more people, I earn more.”

The developer building a media client. The operator hosting the files. The publishing tool helping a creator ship. The fan who reposts a film to her followers. Every one of them a shareholder in the works they help create, distribute, and sell. Not metaphorically, literally: a public split table on every work, signed by its creator, settled in sats that each shareholder withdraws whenever they please. Every piece of content becomes a tiny firm with a transparent cap table, and the network becomes its workforce.

Why content? Because content is the honeypot. Be honest about why people are online: escapism. News, friends and family, special interests, shopping, entertainment. That’s the whole list. Nobody outside our bubble joins a network to admire its protocol design. If we want people on Nostr, we must feed them what they came online for… and right now we offer them conversations about relays. The incentive layer fixes the supply side without a marketing department: when every client, every host, every fan profits from importing and pushing great content, the network grows its own sales force. Creators follow audiences. Audiences follow content. Content follows money. Close the loop.

One law governs the whole design, and it is non-negotiable: reward conversion, never attention. Bitcoin’s incentives work because proof-of-work cannot be faked. “I promoted this content” can be faked all day long — the only unforgeable event in a media economy is the payment itself. So nothing in this system pays for impressions, views, or engagement. It pays when value actually changes hands, and whoever verifiably caused that exchange takes their share. This is the difference between building an economy and rebuilding the engagement-farming dystopia we all escaped. The algorithms of the old world optimized for your attention because attention was what they could sell. We optimize for nothing. We only settle what was genuinely paid.

To my friends in the Value-for-Value camp: nothing here threatens you. V4V is the first mode, the default mode, the soul of this network, and it stays that way. But it is one mode, not a religion. A creator should declare the terms of support she accepts: tips, pay-per-view, purchase, subscription… and the network should honor her choice. Keeping serious creators away because we permit only one business model doesn’t protect Nostr’s purity. It protects its irrelevance.

And because incentives are a genie, I’ll say the uncomfortable parts before my critics do: open systems can’t stop a buyer from claiming their own referral… so a promotion pool is also, honestly, a bounded self-discount. Referral spam will exist at the margins; mutes and webs of trust will price it. Splits are enforced by software defaults, auditability, and paying servers, not by mathematics. None of this is perfect. Bitcoin’s game produced mining pools and fee wars too. Imperfect incentives that mostly align still beat pure ideology that mostly exhausts.

The full proposal exists; event kinds, split tables, deal handshakes between creators and their infrastructure, pull-based settlement where every shareholder draws from the pot at will. I need to go through a few more versions first.

I can’t code. For years that meant all I could do was argue. Now I can leverage tools to try to demonstrate what I dream.

Nostr already has Bitcoin’s cryptography. It’s time it got Bitcoin’s game theory.

Wanna talk about how Nostr lacks game theory and then dream about ...

2026-06-12T11:41:40Z

In reply to nevent1q…anzz
_________________________

Wanna talk about how Nostr lacks game theory and then dream about creating an incentive layer?

Thoughts so… it’s like planning and scheduling, gives the ...

2026-06-12T11:11:51Z

In reply to nevent1q…fjn2
_________________________

Thoughts so… it’s like planning and scheduling, gives the brain the impression the work was done. I’m so guilty of that…

… I hope the reason is not procrastinating taking care of your ...

2026-06-12T11:10:16Z

In reply to nevent1q…v0d2
_________________________

… I hope the reason is not procrastinating taking care of your fitness.

#nevent1q…fztk

2026-06-11T18:07:13Z

In reply to nevent1q…tmaf
_________________________

quoting nevent1q…fztk
Nostr Has the Wrong Half of Bitcoin

(A manifesto for the missing incentive layer)

They call Nostr the Bitcoin of communication. I used to nod along. Then I realized we copied the wrong half.

Nostr is a brilliant, simple communication network that leverages cryptography. Keys, signatures, relays — elegant, minimal, unstoppable. But cryptography was never Bitcoin’s breakthrough. The signatures, the hashes — all of it existed for decades before Satoshi. What Bitcoin invented was a game: a set of incentives so well-constructed that the most profitable move for every participant is the honest one. Miners don’t secure Bitcoin out of ideology. They secure it because they are paid in the very thing they secure. Enriching themselves and strengthening the network are the same act.

Now ask: what is that game on Nostr?

There isn’t one.

Anyone can run a relay — and pay for the privilege. Anyone can build a client — and live on grants and donations. That is not game theory. That is patronage, and patronage scales with ideology. Ideology got us this far: a network of believers talking to believers, largely about the network itself. It will not take us further. A protocol that runs on conviction recruits the convinced. A protocol that runs on incentives recruits everyone.

Here is what I want every single player to be able to say when they look at this network:

“If I play fair, I earn shares of the content. If I push the content to more people, I earn more.”

The developer building a media client. The operator hosting the files. The publishing tool helping a creator ship. The fan who reposts a film to her followers. Every one of them a shareholder in the works they help create, distribute, and sell. Not metaphorically — literally: a public split table on every work, signed by its creator, settled in sats that each shareholder withdraws whenever they please. Every piece of content becomes a tiny firm with a transparent cap table, and the network becomes its workforce.

Why content? Because content is the honeypot. Be honest about why people are online: escapism. News, friends and family, special interests, shopping, entertainment. That’s the whole list. Nobody outside our bubble joins a network to admire its protocol design. If we want people on Nostr, we must feed them what they came online for — and right now we offer them conversations about relays. The incentive layer fixes the supply side without a marketing department: when every client, every host, every fan profits from importing and pushing great content, the network grows its own sales force. Creators follow audiences. Audiences follow content. Content follows money. Close the loop.

One law governs the whole design, and it is non-negotiable: reward conversion, never attention. Bitcoin’s incentives work because proof-of-work cannot be faked. “I promoted this content” can be faked all day long — the only unforgeable event in a media economy is the payment itself. So nothing in this system pays for impressions, views, or engagement. It pays when value actually changes hands, and whoever verifiably caused that exchange takes their share. This is the difference between building an economy and rebuilding the engagement-farming dystopia we all escaped. The algorithms of the old world optimized for your attention because attention was what they could sell. We optimize for nothing. We only settle what was genuinely paid.

To my friends in the Value-for-Value camp: nothing here threatens you. V4V is the first mode, the default mode, the soul of this network — and it stays that way. But it is one mode, not a religion. A creator should declare the terms of support she accepts — tips, pay-per-view, purchase, subscription — and the network should honor her choice. Keeping serious creators away because we permit only one business model doesn’t protect Nostr’s purity. It protects its irrelevance.

And because incentives are a genie, I’ll say the uncomfortable parts before my critics do: open systems can’t stop a buyer from claiming their own referral — so a promotion pool is also, honestly, a bounded self-discount. Referral spam will exist at the margins; mutes and webs of trust will price it. Splits are enforced by software defaults, auditability, and paying servers — not by mathematics. None of this is perfect. Bitcoin’s game produced mining pools and fee wars too. Imperfect incentives that mostly align still beat pure ideology that mostly exhausts.

The full proposal exists — event kinds, split tables, deal handshakes between creators and their infrastructure, pull-based settlement where every shareholder draws from the pot at will. I need to go through a few more versions first.

I can’t code. For years that meant all I could do was argue. Now I can show up with an artifact and a simple claim:

Nostr already has Bitcoin’s cryptography. It’s time it got Bitcoin’s game theory.

Patronage does not make sense. Nostr needs an Incentive layer. ...

2026-06-11T11:48:26Z

In reply to nevent1q…5aqd
_________________________

Patronage does not make sense. Nostr needs an Incentive layer. Bit of game theory…

Step 3) return to Nostr once it has an incentive layer that ...

2026-06-11T11:46:26Z

In reply to nevent1q…chex
_________________________

Step 3) return to Nostr once it has an incentive layer that attracts creators, users, devs and operators

@npub1l2v…ajft here is the manifesto, the hallucinated specs ...

2026-06-11T10:45:12Z

In reply to nevent1q…qml3
_________________________

PABLOF7z (npub1l2v…ajft) here is the manifesto, the hallucinated specs are in the replies ( as a reply to BIT ISH request)

I concede that Jeff is a bit weird, hiding in his beautiful ...

2026-06-11T10:33:20Z

In reply to nevent1q…vcss
_________________________

I concede that Jeff is a bit weird, hiding in his beautiful mountains. Worth noting how quickly you found the note above though…

I take advantage of this to ask if you saw that stuff I rambled about an Incentive Layer for Nostr. You’re tagged on the manifesto. If you do check it out keep in mind that the specs are hallucinated, my contributions are outlined the rest is outside my capabilities.

I have not. I will look into it, thanks for the link.

2026-06-11T10:23:04Z

In reply to nevent1q…zxdl
_________________________

I have not. I will look into it, thanks for the link.