> I'm not saying that AWS is the best. I'm saying that compared to AWS, Codius gives me less guarantees. Codius isn't supposed to give you any guarantees but C

> I'm not saying that AWS is the best. I'm saying that compared to AWS, Codius gives me less guarantees. Codius isn't supposed to give you any guarantees but Codius hosts might. Imagine you're a Codius host. You make money when people upload contracts. If you think you can make more money by legally agreeing not to screw with your users' uploads, you may just do that. IANAL, so I'm not sure exactly how you would do it but I imagine you could have the CLI print a tabulated summary of the hosts' terms and conditions that you could agree to and thereby enter into a binding contract. Whether this is a good idea and whether people will actually do this, I don't know but there are definitely hosting companies who are interested in running Codius hosts. So as an uploader you'll be able to choose to upload to reputable hosting companies or to whoever you want. There are pros and cons to either option. > A Sybil attack seems to be quite cheap on Codius. I can have 10 hosts managed with 10 different identities and make people think the app is legit. Point taken. I remember a few years ago there was a story going around about some botnet you could rent with 400000 hosts. So this isn't anything new. If people abuse Codius, we'll think about ways to make that less attractive. But I think it's not so unprecedented to have distributed networks you can run arbitrary code on that we have to worry about breaking the Internet. I hope. > Maybe I'm thinking too much about "blockchain" when I think about Codius, but reading "Decentralized apps" and "Smart contracts/programs" in the homepage doesn't help, I'd remove it. Totally fair point. I think the main thing is that when we created the website there was a lot less "blockchain fatigue" than there is no, so the next redesign will definitely emphasize more of the pragmatism and less of the blockchain magic.