“our lead shares our philosophy that technology should serve the user, not the reverse
-
(sorry broke the reply chain because I accidentally replied from the wrong account first)
yeah true. My vibe is that Jay has a big network in the crypto world, and is selling atproto as embodying the ideals of the crypto world related to decentralisation and selfownership of digital identity, without the major drawbacks of what she seems to call hyperfinancialisation
Molly White (@[email protected])
@[email protected] @[email protected] the corollary here is they probably could have raised from different investors too, if they so chose
Hachyderm.io (hachyderm.io)
-
“in conclusion, we truly believe these leopards won’t eat our face.
love, bluesky” -
@laurenshof @molly0xfff Interesting, thank you for the analysis!
-
your idiot friendreplied to Molly White on last edited by
@molly0xfff “and to make sure everyone benefits we’re adding the leopard to our board where they could theoretically vote to change our policy on eating faces”
-
@molly0xfff The way they described how really, honestly, truly BS isn't going to be using blockchain makes me think they've already implemented some completely useless crypto feature they'll start unrolling like next week.
-
git is blockchain technology, and has been around a lot longer than cryptocurrency.
-
@i_understand that requires a pretty unusual definition of "blockchain"
-
Why would you say that, git is a blockchain. Blockchain was invented in the 90s. The first using the NYTs as the independent "proof" for partners to validate the integrity of the chain.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/what-was-the-first-blockchain/
-
Molly Whitereplied to I understand on last edited by [email protected]
@i_understand again, it's an unusual definition of blockchains if git is included. there are shared characteristics, to be sure, but git lacks immutability and decentralized consensus mechanisms
-
Git lacks immutability? The hashes for each chain are published and used to ensure history can not be modified as each new transaction is added.
In terms of "decentralized consensus mechanisms", I'm not aware that is a requirement for a blockchain. Certainly consensus is required, but the decentralized bit is a choice. Here is something from finra that I hope helps show I'm not the only one thinking this way, there are other references of course.
-
@i_understand the contents of a git commit can't be changed without changing the hash, if that's what you're referring to, but git is absolutely mutable. ask anyone who's accidentally checked in a private key.
-
@laurenshof @stefan @molly0xfff yeah, fwiw I think the dollar amount here is probably the least concerning thing. they're easily on track to generate more than enough value to justify that. it's the everything else about vc that is more of an issue.
-
@molly0xfff @stefan why would we want some to win over the other? Their premises are different. I think there's room for both.
-
@Moke @molly0xfff It's not as much about what we want, though, rather about all these Twitter competitors being able to pay back their investors.
So far, the track record hasn't been so good.
https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/19/post-news-the-a16z-funded-twitter-alternative-is-shutting-down/
-
The difference from those to Bluesky, is that Bluesky is not only a social media but a steward for this open protocol called ATProto (as Mastodon is for ActivityPub).
In case Bluesky turns out bad in the future, anyone can host the infrastructure themselves, and people can move their whole existing data to this other provider (obviously this is easier said than done, but it's possible).
-
"anyone can host the infrastructure themselves"
Can they though?
There are nearly 30,000 fediverse servers*, each standalone, working independently. You can host one for $5-$10/month **.
* As per https://fedidb.org.
** https://stefanbohacek.com/blog/lessons-learned-from-running-a-single-person-mastodon-instance/#hosting -
Stefan Bohacekreplied to Stefan Bohacek on last edited by
@Moke @molly0xfff Compare that to Bluesky, from their own blog:
"The federation architecture allows anyone to host a Relay, though it’s a fairly resource-demanding service. In all likelihood, there may be a few large full-network providers, and then a long tail of partial-network providers."
https://bsky.social/about/blog/5-5-2023-federation-architecture
-
If you want to host 13 million people of course this will have a huge cost. But you can if you have the resources for it. As here, if you have a big server you will have big costs. Also, the ATProto allows for people to host only part of the network, so different parts of it could be maintained by different people, different from ActivityPub.
Like in this image: each part of the infrastructure could have a different provider (or multiple ones).
-
"If you want to host 13 million people of course this will have a huge cost"
Right, same as hosting 13 million people on a fediverse server.
My point is more about this: If mastodon.social disappears one day, I can host my own single-user server for $6/month. That's the whole infrastructure.
"In case Bluesky turns out bad in the future"
Yes, how much would it cost me to run all the necessary infrastructure just for myself?
-
"I can host my own single user server for $6/month".
Right. That's nice, but that comes with other limitations. Like, you are seeing someone's post and the replies that you see might be different from the replies that people from other server see.
This would not happen on ATProto because the way it works is different. And that's why, coming back to my first reply, that I think there's room for both and we don't need to root for one to win over another.
