No I mean *really* awesome
www.theregister.com/2023/11/22/b...

tonight again

4/ owner of a thread shall be able to introduce some kind of moderation in order for the network not be spammed, one one hand that could be seen as a kind of censorship but on another hand this add informational value, just like in the way reddit does

3/ pds having know users@pds following them shall push the message to reader pds for them to relay messages in a power efficient way

2/ users, or pds, shall be able to authenticate easily on another pds, in order to access a decentralised thread, that could be achieved at the "following" step just, for example by passing a captcha

1/ starting a thread should be linked as message source authority on the pds that has started the thread in order to have a reliable source for aggregation

I think it's possible and that no one owning the network should be a goal, a by design feature, otherwise it's just centralized, (open source) . One way not to split too much the network would be to initialize the message flow on the pds owning the thread. That would have two consequences:

I am afraid it's not, by design somehow.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_...

It's because bookmark shall evolve, be appended, be amended and what I see built all around is by design fire and forget. So one should be able to edit his/her post at first than it could became a bookmark. That's not yet the kind of Goofer that was designed, unfortunately. #needtoamendmypost

Isn't it just Decentralised spirit lost in translation? having multiple instance was *the* point. Could not be be done? What was the point in having yet another centralized workload?

1 2,3 👀 ssb-relay with did resolver, over tor, over namecoin, dmba.info, you get [email protected] namecoin ensure relay servername uniqueness and relay ensure name uniqueness, by a simple addition to ssb protocol public key inside relay can be mapped to did.