Last Notes
do you have a little bit more info on that? 🙏 What, where, how? 😅
At least we got us and nostr.
Can't imagine to build on something else. They will get it at some point
my proposal in case anyone is interested
https://pad.edufeed.org/s/EencCts8X3
also a no here.
@npub1qe3…zefe you also handed in something?
#nevent1q…wt8k
GM Sir
Did you get feedback on luxembourg conference? Got rejected :/
GM
There are people picking up there dog's shit in the forest with a plastic bag. And then they carry it around for half an hour ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Anyway have a blessed Sunday
https://haven.laoc.xyz/bf830b09a7279e5a193d6176897b292d91a583fc778c128cb0ae7dd718aff690.jpg
GM
https://haven.laoc.xyz/75309e009832fd3b277d37ff1c95caab3d34da5bd65005c34fbcd85087a645c6.jpg
Wtf
Can't make this stuff up
Thank you for this article on that perspective!
The key based argument is the one I get most confronted with, especially talking with devs of running services in that area. I guess we can mitigate this using trusted third party services as they already do. They continue using their identity providers, but its like using pomegenerate. But it will become much easier for people to communicate across services, move and reduce vendor lock in options.
What arguments do you disagree on?
My priority is this: if we start now developing public infra on ActivityPub in a federal system like Germany we end up like, ok every state runs its own activitypub instance. Then one state will drop out in the future, because they get a government that says I don't like whatever the previous government has done and will end this service and stop it.
The users will end up lost. Because they loose their public identity because it is domain based. All the references to content they produced might get lost.
That's why I think *any* domain based system is not suited for public infrastructure
Plesse Start and solve it 😁
isnt the whole project based on one guy scribbling and pushing his os config?
looking forward for your experiences. looked interesting though
see e.g. https://www.bpb.de/lernen/digitale-bildung/werkstatt/576352/das-fediverse-als-raum-politischer-bildung/#node-content-title-4
Because they want to provide services where e.g. teachers can exchange ideas and learning content they develop, but where should they do it?
They can't say use WhatsApp or Insta, if they want to facilitate that as a general policy or want to support them, they need a service to do so.
And the only proocol coming to their mind that is already quite tested is activityPub to build upon. But I think it would be a huge mistake to do so, because of all the flaws, especially regarding identity that activityPub carries.
Whats your take on napps vs webxdc stuff that ditto pushes? Isn't it a similar use case?
I think the shit that was going on here with capgemini and billions lost in trying to build that monolith actually made *some* people loose trust in that consulting moneygrabbers.
But things just work in that way that they will have to fund activitypub / atproto stuff, if they find no arguments for nostr somewhere else. that's why we went to fosdem and hand in proposals at that luxembourg thing or not?
"show and tell": I attended every possible conference I could and dropped the word. I built for showing them that the solutions they are looking for are already there. A friend of mine is a prof for special education and is going right now from state to state to convince people of actually your example, because he got that nostr will actually enable this.
And some listened, but without lobbies like ones that https://eurosky.tech/ can run, it's hard for them to argue funding and exploring nostr based solutions further, because they will get asked why the fund stuff that's not recommended by that expert comissions. It's damn stupid, but that's how that shit works. I just want to make sure the money gets spent on something sensible. I already paid the last big failure they tried.
GM!
Glad to see you back! 🫂
## Signatures
Nostr events are atomic and self-verifiable: generate a hash, verify the Schnorr signature against the public key—offline, without network access, and without additional context. The key *is* the identity.
In atproto, the signature is attached to the repository commit rather than the individual record. While individual verification is possible, it requires an inclusion proof via the PLC directory. Consequently, verification is no longer self-contained; it has a runtime dependency on a central entity.
In standard operation, ActivityPub signs the delivery process using the server key, not the object itself. Once forwarded, the content cannot be independently verified; object-bound signatures exist only as an optional extension (FEP-8b32) with no widespread implementation.
For a distributed public infrastructure involving many small, heterogeneous consumers, the Nostr approach therefore offers a significantly lower barrier to entry: the artifact and the proof travel together, and any participant can verify the authenticity of a data record with just a few lines of code without needing to trust a relay, server, or directory.
## Identity
ActivityPub identities are constitutively bound to a domain: @user@instance.state.de. The domain is not an address but part of the identity itself. In a federal system where each state runs its own instance, identity is therefore state-bound — and it ends when the state stops operating. Mastodon's Move migrates followers but not content, and requires the origin instance to still be running and cooperating.
The more serious issue is reference integrity. If state A cites resources from state B in collections, curriculum mappings or learning paths, and B shuts down its instance, it is not only accounts that break but every reference to them. In an infrastructure built for cross-state reuse, that is a structural defect rather than an operational risk.
In Nostr the key is the identity. Domains still appear via NIP-05, but as a revocable, replaceable attribute rather than a foundation. A state can shut down its relay without breaking a single identity or reference; the events remain verifiable on any other relay. Responsibility for operations is thus decoupled from responsibility for identity — a far better fit for federal reality than a model in which one state's exit devalues everyone else's data.
## atproto: portability (but with a directory caveat)
The AT Protocol addresses this. Identity there is a DID, not a domain; the handle is merely an alias proven via DNS or HTTP and can be changed without breaking the identity. Migrating between Personal Data Servers is supported, and repositories can be exported and re-imported elsewhere. Rotation keys even let an identity survive loss of the signing key — but only because in normal operation the PDS operator holds such a key in trust. Recoverability is solved organisationally, not cryptographically: whoever can rescue the identity can also alter it. The tie to an operator is loosened, not removed.
The second caveat concerns resolution itself. `did:plc`, the method used almost exclusively in practice, is not a self-certifying identifier but points to a central directory, so far operated by Bluesky PBC. It is auditable, but its failure interrupts identity resolution network-wide, and its operator can change without the federation having any say. For public education infrastructure planned in decades, this merely relocates the dependency: from a state domain to a commercially operated registry in another jurisdiction. The alternative, `did:web`, avoids that but reintroduces exactly the domain binding we set out to escape.
## The Eurosky case
The obvious rejoinder is that sovereign European atproto infrastructure already exists. Eurosky (https://eurosky.tech/), a project of the Dutch Stichting Modal, runs its own Personal Data Server: data sits in Hetzner facilities in Falkenstein, Eurosky operates the service itself, the contract is held by the foundation, and the service falls under European law including GDPR and DSA. That is substantial and relevant for public bodies.
But it concerns the hosting layer, which was never the problem: that anyone may run a PDS is an explicit design feature and permissionless by intent. **The identity layer is untouched: a Eurosky account still carries a did:plc identity resolved against the same central directory**. Data held in Germany, identity resolved through a registry in foreign hands — for an argument resting on digital sovereignty, that is a solution at one layer, not throughout. The rotation-key trust relationship likewise only shifts, from Bluesky PBC to a Dutch foundation: still operator-mediated.
There is also the protocol's practical shape. atproto is built around a few large aggregators processing the whole network's traffic; as of early 2026, Bluesky PBC still ran the only full-network AppView. That suits a platform, less so a landscape of sixteen states, media centres and other bodies each running small nodes and exchanging selectively.
## Key loss
The obvious objection to key-based identity: what happens when a key is lost, and who is responsible in an administrative context? It must be addressed, but it is solvable.
For individual users, FROSTR and pomegranate offer approaches based on FROST signatures, standardised as RFC 9591: the key is split into shares, and signing requires k of n.
The contrast with the atproto model is therefore precise: there, one party must be able to act alone for recovery to work at all. Here, participation is possible without sole authority.
wow what an argument.
I'm paying taxes if I like it or not. I would like to see them spent on sensible stuff and not going to waste
GM Dear Nostr,
I need your help. I need all the arguments you can think of, why it would be a terrible idea to build public infrastructure based on ActvityPub and/or atproto instead of Nostr.
There is a public recommendation for action for german education infrastructure that says that open protocol based initiatives should be used in near future to get rid of big tech companies in public education infrastructures. But they name EuroSky and Fediverse as examples.
I need to get Nostr in there for reasons. So I would like to collect the biggest list of counter arguments. Technical, sustainability, societal perspectives, whatever comes to your mind.
cc @npub1t6j…ksrw @npub1qe3…zefe @npub1l77…swft @npub1equ…hkj6 @npub107j…ncxg @npub1ren…aw97 you got much bigger reach, please share 🫂
#asknostr
GM
@npub1ye5…knpr https://www.nostrapps.com/ is not working. I get ssl errors. Wanted to try out the napps you posted earlier about
Have a great day!
Or stash...
https://zapstore.dev/apps/naddr1qq88s7t69ekxzmmr9eehgctndqq3samnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fw0fshqum5daex2tnyv4mqygqutleu4txcgtqpmj50x7prrvtxzagk6g2d5aw8464ma8s7l6wq7cpsgqqq0c9s9lfdd3
😅
Stash got a new release!
@npub107j…ncxg you can now on any website click "Share" -> "Stash" and the select read in stash. then you can also do highlights inside the stash reader and we circumvent that issue when they don't send the source link
also you can now share highlights direct in your NIP-29 groups
#nevent1q…h7r5
https://zapstore.dev/apps/xyz.laoc.stash
GM, good travels!
Are you planning to move or for holidays?
GM
https://haven.laoc.xyz/cbe88f9389f5dbd3f783cebd261782756f6427f6bbbc193150c6c70f63d469c3.jpg
Btw, this was just released as well: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-032-26816-7_11
I'm not really satisfied with it, but maybe it's also of interest for you
Hey,
so this was just released as well: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-032-26816-7_11
maybe its also of interest for you
Alright will have a look! 🫡
Scroll position should work now. Please update and check 💜
https://zapstore.dev/apps/naddr1qq88s7t69ekxzmmr9eehgctndqq3samnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fw0fshqum5daex2tnyv4mqygqutleu4txcgtqpmj50x7prrvtxzagk6g2d5aw8464ma8s7l6wq7cpsgqqq0c9s9lfdd3
Can you show/link me the note from another app? Will have a look
Long time no see! Lets make it happen!
Or despair and they even try the crazy stuff now
:110percent: thanks for trying out!
I will fix this in the next release!
GM
How did it go? Can you recommend gsd?