THE VOTE OF THE RELAYS
ACT I: THE INFECTION
Chapter 1: The Invisible Cathedral
Leo
The air in his study smelled of dust and silicon. Three monitors lit up the darkness, each with its own stream of digital consciousness. On the left, the code of his custom client, “Agora,” a fork of one of the most promising projects that had stalled due to a lack of contributors. In the center, the terminal window with logs from his private relay, a virtual machine whispering data packets across the global network. On the right, the “Pylon” client, the most popular among the technocrats, where the real battles were waged.
His proposal for NIP-98, an extension for decentralized corporate identity management without sacrificing individual privacy, had been closed. Not rejected in a formal vote, but archived with the label «Discussion exhausted.» The thread was two hundred messages long. The last fifty were a tight conversation between four users, whose public keys formed a familiar constellation: @astra, @kern, @void, @cipher. They exchanged links to academic papers, cited hypothetical vulnerabilities in similar systems, used a language so dense it was opaque even to Leo, who had studied the protocol line by line.
His last reply, an attempt to translate those concepts into practical examples, had been ignored. Then, @astra had written: «The complexity here is inevitable. Better a system usable by a few than an insecure system for many. Period.» And the discussion had died.
Leo stood up, ran his fingers along the rough edge of the desk. The anger he felt wasn’t about the rejection itself – technical debate was sacred – but about the method. They had erected a wall of complexity and then declared themselves the only guardians capable of scaling it. The protocol was born as a reaction to the centralization of social platforms, a declaration of individual independence. But this elite was replicating the same power dynamic, only with a subtler hierarchy, harder to unmask. Instead of proprietary algorithms, they used technicalities. Instead of bans, they used social ostracism. The result was the same: control.
His phone vibrated. A notification from his monitoring system: an anomalous spike in connections to a minor relay, “Torba.” They came from lightweight clients, often used by new users. Something was happening at the edges of the network. Leo made a mental note to investigate later. Now he had to prepare for the weekly “NIP Review Committee” meeting. A pompous title for a private chat to which he had access only as an observer. It would be another exercise in controlled humiliation.
Zoe
The studio was a work of minimalist design, a deliberate contrast to the digital chaos she manipulated. Rings of LED light shaped her face for the webcam. She was recording a reel for a centralized platform, talking about how online communities were rediscovering the value of authentic niches. She didn’t mention Nostr. Not yet.
Finished recording, she opened her Nostr client, “Nexus.” Her key, verified with an expensive personal domain, granted her a blue checkmark and a high “Authenticity” score. But it was the “NostrRank,” a number between 1 and 100 that fluctuated based on unknown parameters, that determined her real reach. She checked it: 87. Good, but not excellent. The “Top Contributors” – a public list that included @astra, @kern, and others – were consistently above 95.
She had published a well-documented thread on the history of free software movements, a transparent metaphor for the current situation in the protocol. She cited Eric S. Raymond, spoke of the cathedral and the bazaar. The post had generated hundreds of likes and reposts, but almost all from users with a low-to-medium rank. The “Top Contributors” had remained silent. Worse, data analysis from her main relay showed that the thread had been “seen” by many of them, but without interaction. It was the equivalent of icy disdain in a salon.
Then she noticed a pattern. Every time she used hashtags like #decentralization or #governance, her rank’s growth rate slowed. When she talked about neutral technicalities or offline events, the rank rose. It was as if an invisible algorithm – or perhaps a human curia – rewarded non-contestation.
An encrypted private message appeared in the client. It came from a trusted contact, a technology journalist.
«Zoe, I’ve heard rumors. They’re preparing a big announcement. Something about identity and security. It could be a move to consolidate control. Be careful.»
Zoe closed her eyes. She felt it, the pressure. The same she had felt when big platforms started demonetizing her most critical content. She had moved to Nostr to escape that. And yet, here the same monster was regrowing, with a different mask. The protocol was technically free, but the culture pervading it was becoming toxic. And the most dangerous toxins were the invisible ones, the ones that convinced you to self-censor.
Mika
The coffee in his mug was cold. In front of him, five browser tabs open: the official Nostr documentation (extremely obscure), a Medium tutorial (outdated), a Reddit thread full of conflicting information, the “NostrWorld” client website (too glossy), and a German forum he was laboriously translating with an automatic tool.
He had followed all the steps. Generated keys with a reliable tool. Saved the private key on a sheet of paper, stored in a drawer. Choosing a relay had been hell. In the end, he selected “RelayHub,” one of the most popular, hoping it was a safe choice. Now his client, a simple web app, showed an incessant stream of notes. But they were incomprehensible. People discussing “NIP-23” versus “NIP-56,” “synchronicity” problems between relays, “gossip” protocol optimizations. He felt as if he had enrolled in an advanced university course without ever attending the introductory lectures.
He had tried to ask for help. On a channel called “Nostr-Ita” (he was Italian, at least) he wrote: «Hi, I just started. Is there a step-by-step guide to understand how everything works? I feel lost.»
The first reply was: «Read the documentation.» The second: «If you feel lost maybe this isn’t the place for you.» The third, from a user with a friendly nickname: «I recommend using client X, much simpler.» Mika clicked the link. It was a paid client, monthly.
The feeling of exclusion was physical, a knot in his stomach. He had embraced this technology convinced he was entering a more open, transparent future. Instead, he found himself facing an exclusive club whose members seemed to enjoy keeping others out. The technology itself, instead of breaking down barriers, was being used as a barrier. Complexity wasn’t a side effect; it was a desired feature.
Then, by chance, he found a note from someone signing as @phoenix. They spoke in clear, simple Italian about centralization of the main relays and how alternatives were emerging. The note had been “boosted” (an amplification system) by a few dozen users, but had zero likes from the “big names.” Mika clicked on @phoenix’s profile. Their NostrRank was 45. An outsider. But their words were the only ones that made sense.
With a mix of desperation and hope, Mika wrote to them privately: «I read your note. I also feel excluded. Is there a place where one can learn without feeling stupid?»
The reply came after half an hour: «There’s an alternative relay, called ‘Torba’. The address is wss://torba.relay. People there are more… human. Use a client called ‘Agora’ if you can. It’s a bit technical to install, but I’ll send you a guide.»
Mika sighed. Another client. Another relay. But in @phoenix’s digital voice there was a solidarity he hadn’t found anywhere else. Perhaps the heart of the protocol didn’t beat in the bright palaces of the main relays, but in the damp, crowded cellars of the frontier ones.
Chapter 2: The Silence of the Relays
The Committee meeting took place in an encrypted audio channel, accessible only by invitation. Leo entered with his assigned pseudonym, “observer_09.” He had no speaking rights, only listening.
The voices were distorted by a low-bandwidth codec, but the personalities came through clearly. @astra (female voice, sharp, precise) led the discussion. @kern (male voice, calm, paternalistic) intervened to delve technically into every point. @void (neutral voice, monotone) listed risks and objections. @cipher (young voice, enthusiastic) proposed radical, complex solutions.
They were discussing a “sybil attack” problem on a minor relay. The solution proposed by @cipher involved implementing a “proof-of-personhood” system based on an experimental protocol that required a webcam and a decentralized facial recognition algorithm.
«Privacy is a value, but the security of the network is supreme,» said @astra. «We must be able to distinguish real users from bots. This system is voluntary, but relays that adopt it will be marked as ‘verified’ and will have priority in clients’ default lists.»
Leo felt a chill. They were discussing introducing a voluntary biometric surveillance system, knowing full well that social pressure and convenience would make it de facto mandatory for anyone wanting to be taken seriously. It was the gateway to mandatory digital identity, the exact opposite of the pseudonymity guaranteed by simple cryptographic keys.
He tried to write in the text chat reserved for observers: «Have you considered the privacy impact and the precedent you’re setting?»
His message sat there, alone, for ten minutes. Then @kern said, without changing tone: «Let’s move to the next item. The NIP-72 proposal for multi-factor authentication. We’ve already approved it preliminarily. We’ll publish it tomorrow for “community consultation.”»
Leo froze. NIP-72? He had never heard of it. There had been no public thread, no draft. He frantically clicked the shared link. It was a Google Doc, password-protected. Access was denied.
«The consultation will last 48 hours,» continued @astra. «Then we’ll proceed with the reference implementation. The main relays have already given their approval.»
48 hours. Over a weekend. A farce. The power play was perfect: technical, fast, presented as an unassailable security improvement. Who would oppose “more security”? Only those who didn’t understand the technology, or those with bad intentions.
The meeting ended. Leo disconnected, his hands sweaty. He had to do something. But what? Writing a technical post would be dismissed as alarmism. Going to “Torba” and yelling about a conspiracy? He’d be ignored as a paranoid.
Then he remembered the anomalous connection spike to “Torba.” And he remembered the @phoenix profile, which he had seen mentioned in some marginal thread. Perhaps the margins were already fermenting. Perhaps he wasn’t alone.
Zoe
The NIP-72 announcement exploded in her feed at 9:00 the next morning. A long post, signed by the keys of @astra, @kern, and three other “stewards.” Clean, reassuring prose. “Improving security for everyone,” “Protecting our spaces from coordinated attacks,” “A necessary step for the protocol’s maturity.” The comments, in the first hour, were all enthusiastic support from the usual second-tier figures, those craving elite approval.
Zoe read the technical specification. The proposed MFA system didn’t use an open standard like TOTP. Instead, it required a “Trusted Relay” (TR) that acted as a certification authority. To enable MFA, the user had to register their client with one of these TRs, which would then issue a special token. The TRs would be managed by “entities recognized by the community” – a phrase that made her skin crawl.
It was a central point of control. Whoever controlled the TRs controlled who could access in a “secure” way. And, in a subsequent crackdown, they could declare that only “TR-Verified” MFA accounts could participate in votes, have a high rank, or even post on certain relays.
She had to respond. But how? A frontal attack would be suicidal. Her rank would plummet. Her voice would be confined to the margins. She had to be strategic. She opened a blank document and started writing. Not an attack, but a series of questions. Apparently innocent questions, from a concerned user trying to understand.
- “Who selects the ‘Trusted Relays’ and by what criteria?”
- “What happens if a TR is compromised or decides to abuse its position?”
- “Doesn’t this system create a class of ‘first-class’ users (with TR MFA) and ‘second-class’ users (without)?”
- “Do decentralized alternatives already exist, like hardware wallet extensions?”
She posted the thread as “Open questions on NIP-72,” with a cordial, constructive tone. Within minutes, the replies came. Harsh.
«The questions have already been addressed in the working group,» wrote @void. «Security has a cost. If you don’t like it, you can always not use it,» wrote another. «Smells of FUD,» wrote a third, using the acronym for “Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.”
Then, the low blow. Her thread disappeared from the main view of her client. A quick check: it had been “de-boosted” by the main relay. Not censored, just made invisible. To see it, you had to explicitly search for its ID. It was the perfect “shadowban.”
Her phone rang. It was the technology journalist. «They pushed the preliminary vote through yesterday in a closed committee. The public consultation is a fig leaf. They’re already implementing. Zoe, they’re closing the circle.»
Zoe looked out the window, over the city. The network was supposed to be a square, not a castle. But the castle had the keys, and the walls were made of indifference and complexity. She felt not fear, but a cold, determined anger rise within her. They had chosen the wrong adversary.
Mika
With the help of @phoenix’s guide, Mika managed to install “Agora.” The interface was spartan, but immediately different. There were no rank scores on display. The “Torba” relay had a channel called “Piazza,” where people talked about everything, not just tech. Some asked for client advice, some shared poems, some discussed politics. The tone was civil, patient.
He read Zoe’s thread, which someone had republished on Torba. He read the questions. Finally, someone putting his own fears into words. And he read the scornful replies. He understood that this wasn’t just snobbery: it was a precise tactic.
Then, @phoenix published a note on Torba: «NIP-72 isn’t just a feature. It’s a paradigm shift. It transforms the protocol from a peer-to-peer network to a hierarchical one. The ‘Trusted Relays’ are the new gatekeepers. They’re using fear of attacks to make us accept centralized control. We must organize.»
The note received dozens of likes, but almost all from users with low or medium ranks. Mika looked at his public key, that long string of letters and numbers that was his only identity. It was his sovereignty. They were trying to chain it to a trust authority. Trusted by whom?
He wrote to @phoenix privately: «It’s Mika. From yesterday. What can we do? I feel small, I don’t know anything about tech.»
The reply came: «Tech is just a tool. The real battle is cultural. We must make people understand that simplicity is a right. That security must not come at the expense of freedom. Have you ever organized anything? An event, a gathering?»
Mika thought about it. He had organized a fundraiser for the neighborhood gym. «Something, yes.»
«Good. Then you know how to coordinate people. We need someone to help coordinate those who are confused, scared, or simply tired of being treated as second-class citizens. You don’t need to know how to write code. You need to know how to listen and make people feel part of something. Are you in?»
Mika didn’t hesitate. «I’m in.»
«Welcome to the resistance. Tomorrow, same time, on this encrypted voice channel. Link at 21:00.»
Mika felt, for the first time since entering that digital world, part of a community. Not a community that judged, but one that welcomed. His inexperience was no longer a flaw; it was a necessary perspective. Perhaps, he thought, perhaps the true protocol wasn’t the lines of code, but the human connections that flowed through it. And those connections were about to tighten into a knot.
Chapter 3: The Cellar Pact
The voice channel was called “Cellar.” The audio was raw, without artificial distortions. There were five voices, besides @phoenix’s.
«Thank you all for being here,» said @phoenix. The voice was that of a man in his thirties, tired but determined. «I know some of you only by pseudonym. That’s fine. For now. I’m Leo.»
Silence. Then Leo continued: «Yes, I’m the observer ‘observer_09’. I’m also the developer behind the ‘Agora’ client. I saw NIP-72 pushed through a closed committee. It’s a technocratic coup.»
A female voice, warm and clear, intervened: «I’m Zoe. My rank is already paying the price for asking uncomfortable questions.»
«And I’m Mika. I don’t understand half of what you’re saying, but I know they’re locking me out of something that should be mine.»
The other two voices introduced themselves: “Sphinx,” a sysadmin running a small relay for friends, and “Runa,” a university lecturer studying the sociology of decentralized networks.
«We have different skills,» said Leo. «But we share a diagnosis: the protocol’s governance has been hijacked. Their power isn’t formal, it’s social and technical. They use complexity as a weapon. Rank as a caste system. And now they want to institutionalize control with NIP-72.»
«The window for public opposition is 48 hours,» said Zoe. «After that, they’ll declare consensus and proceed. We must use those 48 hours not to persuade them – they’re impervious – but to awaken the silent majority.»
«How?» asked Mika. «The silent majority is scattered, confused, or doesn’t even know what a NIP is.»
«We must translate,» said Runa, the sociologist. «Translate technicism into human risk. NIP-72 isn’t ‘multi-factor authentication.’ It’s ‘the end of your online privacy.’ The Trusted Relay isn’t a ‘security improvement.’ It’s ‘a gatekeeper who decides if you’re worthy to enter.’ We must create a counter-narrative that speaks to the gut, not just the head.»
«And we must do it everywhere,» added Zoe. «On marginal relays, on Torba, but also echoing outward. Articles, threads on traditional platforms, videos. We must puncture the bubble.»
Sphinx, the sysadmin, spoke with a hoarse voice: «There’s a technical aspect. NIP-72 requires adoption by the main relays to work. If even a significant portion of minor relays refuses to implement it, it creates a fracture. A social “hard fork.” We could promote an “Open Letter of Independent Relays,” pledging not to adopt NIP-72 and to maintain an open network.»
Leo nodded, though no one could see him. «That’s a good idea. But we must also offer an alternative solution. We can’t just be the party of “no.” I’m working on a draft of NIP-99, which proposes a decentralized MFA system based on co-signing between devices. It’s more complicated to use, but doesn’t introduce central authorities. We can present it as the “true” decentralized alternative.»
«Let’s assign roles,» proposed Zoe. «I’ll handle public narrative. I’ll create clear, viral content. Leo, you coordinate the technical side and the alternative draft. Sphinx, you contact relay administrators. Runa, you analyze group dynamics and help us avoid communication errors. Mika…»
«I can talk to people like me,» said Mika, finding an unexpected confidence in his voice. «I can go into new user channels, on Reddit, on Discord. I can listen to their frustrations and tell them they’re not alone, that there’s a place where they’re heard. I can build the list, the “base camp.”»
«Perfect,» said Leo. «We’ll call ourselves… “The Cellar Council.” Because we’re below street level, where the foundations meet. We’ll communicate only via encrypted channels, on alternative relays. Let’s assume everything we do on the main relays is monitored.»
«One question,» said Mika. «What if they find out who we are? If they ban us?»
«Our keys can be banned from their relays,» Leo replied. «But the protocol prevents that. We can always create new keys. And our messages, if signed, remain verifiable. Our reputation will have to be based on the value of what we say, not on a score. It will be harder, but more authentic. Are we ready?»
In the static-charged silence of the voice channel, five voices said “yes.”
«Then let’s begin. Tomorrow, at the digital dawn, the counteroffensive.»
The Cellar fell silent. But in the network, in the distributed databases of frontier relays, in the logs of alternative clients, a new process had been initiated. A process of resistance. They weren’t trying to destroy the system. They wanted to cure it from within, to eradicate the infection of control and return the protocol to its original spirit: a tool for freedom, not for power.
The battle for the heart of Nostr had begun.
#TechnocracyCritique #GrassrootsDigitalResistance #ComplexityAsAWeapon #PeerGovernance #IndividualSovereignty
Warnings for Use This text is speculative fiction whose purpose is to explore the social and ethical tensions inherent in any technological project that aspires to change society. It is not a technical document, nor a report on Nostr or on any other specific protocol. Any similarity with real people, events or governance mechanisms is partial and filtered through the narrative lens. The intent is not to provide solutions, but to stimulate questions: who decides the rules of the digital space? Who pays the price in terms of complexity or exclusion? Is technical decentralisation enough to ensure fair governance?
Write a comment