标签： 协议

本文将对四种主流的去中心化社交协议：Nostr、ActivityPub、Farcaster 和 Lens Protocol 进行比较分析，探讨它们的核心理念、主要功能、优缺点以及目标用户群体。

评估去中心化社交协议的关键因素：

• 账户创建和通信：用户如何在不依赖中心化服务器的情况下创建账户并进行互动？
• 数据存储和社交图谱：用户数据（包括社交关系和内容）存储在哪里，如何访问？
• 内容审核：协议如何解决垃圾邮件和有害内容等问题，同时维护言论自由原则？
• 激励机制：如何激励服务提供商维护网络并确保其长期可持续性？

1. Nostr：

• 核心理念：Nostr 构建在去中心化的中继网络之上，优先考虑抗审查性和用户对数据的控制权。
• 主要功能：
  • 用户创建公私钥对以进行身份验证。
  • 消息广播到连接的中继，并传递给连接到相同中继的用户。
  • 中继没有义务存储数据，但有些提供付费存储选项。
  • 内容审核由各个中继自行决定。
• 优点：高度抗审查、设计简洁、方便使用比特币闪电网络支付。
• 缺点：数据持久性可能是一个问题，由于缺乏集中审核，垃圾邮件和有害内容的风险增加。
• 目标用户：比特币爱好者、隐私倡导者、寻求抗审查的用户。

2. ActivityPub：

• 核心理念：一种联合社交协议，类似于电子邮件，可实现互操作的社交网络。
• 主要功能：
  • 用户在特定的实例（服务器）上创建帐户。
  • 实例之间相互通信以传递消息和共享数据。
  • 用户可以导出数据并迁移到其他实例。
  • 内容审核由各个实例自行处理。
• 优点：用户体验熟悉，成熟的应用程序（如 Mastodon），允许具有不同审核政策的多元化社区。
• 缺点：依赖实例管理员，实例关闭或审查的风险，缺乏针对实例运营商的明确激励机制。
• 目标用户：寻求中心化社交媒体平台替代方案的用户，具有特定兴趣或价值观的社区。

3. Farcaster：

• 核心理念：旨在创建一个具有强大的数据存储层和用户友好应用程序的去中心化社交网络。
• 主要功能：
  • 利用以太坊进行用户注册和身份验证。
  • 采用中心网络进行实时数据同步。
  • 计划引入订阅模式以创收。
  • 内容审核方法仍在开发中。
• 优点：高度重视数据的持久性和可用性，通过订阅实现可持续资金的潜力。
• 缺点：架构复杂，如果中心数量有限，可能会出现中心化问题。
• 目标用户：寻求 Twitter 的去中心化替代方案的用户，注重数据所有权和可靠性。

4. Lens Protocol：

• 核心理念：利用区块链技术赋予用户对其社交数据的所有权和控制权。
• 主要功能：
  • 建立在 Polygon 区块链之上，使用户能够以 NFT 的形式拥有他们的社交图谱和内容。
  • 允许创建具有不同功能和盈利模式的去中心化社交应用程序。
  • 强调应用程序之间的可组合性和互操作性。
  • 内容审核可以在应用程序级别实施。
• 优点：真正拥有社交数据，创新的社交应用程序和盈利策略的潜力。
• 缺点：与区块链技术相关的可扩展性挑战，潜在的高昂 Gas 费用。
• 目标用户：精通加密的用户，寻求将其内容货币化的创作者，构建去中心化社交应用程序的开发人员。

结论：

选择哪种去中心化社交协议取决于个人需求和优先级。Nostr 提供简单性和抗审查性，ActivityPub 提供熟悉的联合模型，Farcaster 专注于数据持久性和用户体验，Lens Protocol 则通过基于区块链的所有权赋予用户权力。随着该领域的不断发展，这些协议可能会继续创新，并吸引寻求中心化社交媒体平台替代方案的不同社区。

This article provides a comparative analysis of four prominent decentralized social protocols: Nostr, ActivityPub, Farcaster, and Lens Protocol. It delves into their design philosophies, underlying mechanisms, target audiences, and potential competitive advantages.

Key Considerations for Evaluating Decentralized Social Protocols:

• Account Creation and Communication: How do users establish identities and interact within the decentralized framework? This aspect examines the mechanisms for account registration, content posting, and private messaging without relying on centralized servers.
• Data Storage and Social Graph: Where is user data, including social connections and content, stored? This is crucial for understanding data ownership, portability, and censorship resistance.
• Content Moderation: How does the protocol address content moderation challenges, such as spam and harmful content, while upholding free speech principles?
• Incentive Mechanisms: What incentives are in place to encourage participation from service providers and users, ensuring the protocol’s sustainability and growth?

1. Nostr:

• Focus: Censorship resistance and simplicity.
• Mechanism:
  • Relies on a decentralized network of relays for message propagation.
  • Users connect to multiple relays, and messages are delivered to those shared between users.
  • Public-key cryptography ensures message authenticity and optional end-to-end encryption for private messages.
• Data Storage: Distributed across connected relays, with optional data export and self-custody.
• Content Moderation: Relay-specific, with most relays adopting a minimal moderation approach.
• Incentives:
  • Low operational costs for basic relays.
  • Potential for premium services like extended data storage and content moderation as paid subscriptions.
• Ecosystem:
  • Growing rapidly, fueled by the popularity of the Damus app.
  • Attracting a significant user base of Bitcoin enthusiasts.
  • Still in early stages, with many applications in the prototype phase.

2. ActivityPub:

• Focus: Decentralized alternative to traditional social media platforms.
• Mechanism:
  • Employs a federated network of instances (servers).
  • Users register on specific instances, which communicate with each other to deliver messages.
• Data Storage: Stored on the user’s chosen instance, with the option for export and migration.
• Content Moderation: Instance-specific, allowing for diverse moderation policies across the network.
• Incentives:
  • Primarily driven by community contributions and volunteer efforts.
  • Sustainability concerns due to the lack of robust monetization models for instance operators.
• Ecosystem:
  • Mature ecosystem with established applications like Mastodon.
  • Attracts users seeking refuge from centralized censorship and control.

3. Farcaster:

• Focus: Building a decentralized social network with a user-friendly experience.
• Mechanism:
  • Three-layer architecture: Ethereum blockchain for user registration, a network of hubs for data synchronization, and client applications.
  • Hubs maintain a real-time synchronized copy of the network’s data.
• Data Storage: User IDs on the Ethereum blockchain, content and social graph on the network of hubs.
• Content Moderation:
  • Currently unclear, potentially delegated to individual applications.
  • Early focus on curated growth through an invitation-only system.
• Incentives:
  • Short-term reliance on low costs and community enthusiasm.
  • Long-term plans for protocol revenue sharing with hub operators.
• Ecosystem:
  • Early stage but well-funded.
  • Aiming to balance decentralization with a smooth user experience.

4. Lens Protocol:

• Focus: Decentralized social graph that empowers creators and communities.
• Mechanism:
  • Built on the Polygon blockchain, leveraging its scalability and lower transaction fees.
  • Users own their social graph data as NFTs (non-fungible tokens).
• Data Storage:
  • Social graph data stored on the Polygon blockchain.
  • Content can be stored on-chain or off-chain using IPFS (InterPlanetary File System).
• Content Moderation:
  • Can be implemented at the application level or through community governance mechanisms.
• Incentives:
  • Native token ($LENS) for governance and potential monetization opportunities.
  • Enables new forms of creator monetization through NFTs and social tokens.
• Ecosystem:
  • Rapidly growing ecosystem of applications and communities.
  • Strong focus on creator empowerment and ownership.

Conclusion:

The decentralized social media landscape is evolving rapidly, with each protocol offering a unique approach to address the limitations of centralized platforms. The success of these protocols will depend on their ability to attract users, foster vibrant ecosystems, and navigate the challenges of content moderation and sustainability.