@p@817148c3690155401b494580871fb0564a5faafb9454813ef295f2706bc93359@Flick@phnt I read that. I understood it. At what point have I indicated otherwise? Maybe in my original post, but I think it was very clear what I was referring to. And then when graf misunderstood it, I clarified, very explicitly, that I am not referring to that.
>I don't think we're gonna get anywhere Maybe not, and that's entirely on your side. Graf gets angry at me regularly, so him not reading what I write is unsurprising, but apparently you are doing it too. Look at that post, he says, in brief, that: 1) nostr relies on key management 2) which is hard for normies 3) and that's bad And I am saying the last point is wrong.
Do you think the post is not saying that? Do you think the last point is right? I don't know, but I would like to get to the bottom of this because it is frustrating to see you stubbornly not understanding me.
I do not think so. I don't think I'm going to convince you that someone else meant something else when they said something and I don't think it's useful.
> Look at that post, he says, in brief,
This is the issue. You can pick a piece out, but I talk to the guy every day. These aren't formal contracts, he's not signing a bill into law, it's a very informal conversation. So I see that and I read something that resembles all the other stuff he has said. We're looking at the same post, and if you are really interested in parsing the words that finely and treating it as a precise and isolated statement, sure, it's possible to take that meaning. Nobody wants to have a conversation that works that way, though.
I call people "bots" a lot and people that I talk to a lot know that I mean the person behaves closely enough that they may as well be a bot, and people that don't read it that way will say "You think he's a chatbot! I'm sitting right next to him, he's not a bot!" and they don't get what I mean and it's fine. Take it literally enough, treat it like an isolated statement, and calling someone a bot is factually incorrect, but I use it figuratively often enough that most people get my meaning.
So I saw the same post you did, but I read something different.
> And I am saying the last point is wrong.
I'm onboard with that, but Poast runs for people that use Poast; it has to work the way it works or the people on it are frustrated, and whatever you think of the people on it, graf committed to running a service, and he takes Poast pretty seriously as a commitment, and I think that's a good way to run a service.
> Do you think the post is not saying that? Do you think the last point is right?
I don't like catering to normies but if I had started Poast, I'd try to make sure I kept up the commitment to operate Poast as Poast. I don't want to host loli but because I have agreed to import bae.st into Revolver, I'll be hosting a lot of loli; luckily for me, I'm not "hosting" it in the traditional sense, but I agreed to what I agreed to and I'm going to stick to it.
> it is frustrating to see you stubbornly not understanding me.
I don't think I've misunderstood you, just I don't think you and graf are communicating effectively.
Here it is, without the bit that I wasn't responding to, the bit where he went back to shitting on Gleason: >thats not why i am saying it will never take off -- nostr requires you to have a pub and a private key. you have to store both, and you need one to login anywhere you go -- its usually 128-256+ characters. nobody is going to remember that. they're not interested in logging in on one relay and having their shit seen by their friends and then taking it somewhere else and literally nobody knows who they are. the tech is sound but literally *nobody* will be using it. it's such a wasted investment of time and money.