3 ms·
Well, at a first glance, this is mostly reusing existing protocols, so I'm not even sure where the complaint comes from. Second, protocols matter. A lot. They
by _jal 10y ago
Well, at a first glance, this is mostly reusing existing protocols, so I'm not even sure where the complaint comes from.
Second, protocols matter. A lot. They are the are the landscape on which we build our online cities, and just like cities, if you look carefully, you can see outlines where old old protocols used to be. Code is law, as a certain smart guy says.
And even if you really don't care about all that and just want to see the next new shiny, it still matters. Some of us, for instance, think Twitter's problems stem directly from the fact that they wrote a business plan instead of an RFC. That is, the nature of the service would be much better-implemented as a federated messaging service owned by no one, more similar to email.
Of course, nobody gets VC$ for writing RFCs.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago"Well, at a first glance, this is mostly reusing existing protocols, so I'm not even sure where the complaint comes from." It comes from the fact that non of the decentralized tech is getting massive adoption outside of BitTorrent. That got adopted because it met a user need better than anything else as opposed to being decentralized. Since all this tech isn't working & centralized tech is, then the commenter wonders why someone doesn't just build compelling, privacy-preserving, centralized tech that the masses might use. Probably because it's harder work with unfamiliar skills (eg marketing, UX, business) for developers that would rather bullshit around with custom crypto or protocols nobody will ever use. I strongly encourage privacy-preserving, non-profit, usable alternatives to every popular ad-supported or cheap tool out there as an intermediate step. That might go somewhere. Think WhatApp vs Facebook Messenger but with WhatApp using Moxie's stuff and staying paid non-profit.