# NOSTR Comparison

## Summary of advantages of Derupt over NOSTR:

* **Monetization** allowing users to directly monetize content without permission.
* Users have more **flexibility** and control over where their data is stored.
* **Transparency** in how the platform operates and how content is handled.
* Better mechanisms for **spam prevention** due to financial barriers for interaction.
* **Greater user control** over content, data, and monetization.
* **High censorship resistance** through immutable, on-chain content.
* **Decentralization** ensures no single entity controls the platform.

<table><thead><tr><th width="221" align="center">ASPECT</th><th width="281" align="center">NOSTR</th><th align="center">DERUPT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="center">Content Discovery </td><td align="center">Relays can drop content, or not relay, encouraging favoritism and censorship by omission (biased)</td><td align="center">On-chain transparent chronological algorithm, ensuring equal presentation. (unbiased)</td></tr><tr><td align="center">User Control</td><td align="center">Users rely on relays. No direct control over message persistence.</td><td align="center">Users control attachment storage, including their fallback loadout-URI</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Spam/Bot Prevention</td><td align="center">Easy for bots and users to spam due to lack of fees or identity barriers. Centralized Moderation.</td><td align="center">On-chain fees disincentivize spammers. Economic barrier in place. Client-side moderation.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Interface Design</td><td align="center">Relay-dependent. Interface can't directly censor but can stop forwarding.</td><td align="center">Interface agnostic. Owners can mute client-side but cannot delete on-chain data.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Content Storage</td><td align="center">Messages stored on voluntary relay nodes. No guarantees of permanence. No fallbacks.  </td><td align="center">Primary content stored on-chain; attachments in user-controlled Stacks storage, with fallback flexibility. </td></tr><tr><td align="center">Immutability</td><td align="center">Relays can drop messages at any time. No built-in immutability.</td><td align="center">On-chain messages are immutable and URI pointers are permanent. (fallback loadout-uri's ensure resilience in resolution)</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Censorship Resistance</td><td align="center">Subject to platform favoritism  and legal censorship.</td><td align="center">On-chain data cannot be removed. Interfaces may mute, but cannot delete content.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Proof of Censorship</td><td align="center">No proofs capable, censorship done in secret. No user recourse. </td><td align="center">On-chain attestation proves existence of content.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Many of the "advantages" of NOSTR that people tend to advocate for, actually present disadvantages to the user when viewed through the lens of security, immutability, accountability, and censorship resistance.

## Why NOSTR's "advantages" are actually disadvantages:

* Free messaging leads to spam vulnerability with no economic deterrent.
* Ephemeral communication results in lack of accountability and traceability.
* Relay-based moderation introduces inconsistent content availability and censorship risks.
* Custom relay selection can create fragmented conversations and echo chambers.
* Lower-barrier of entry increases exposure to bots and spammers at scale.
* Offline relaying risks message tampering and delayed propagation.
* Faster innovation can lead to instability and security risks
