4 ms·
I wonder if this is one of those few genuine uses for a blockchain based system. Comments (tweets) would be posted on a very thin layer of technology, which wou
by enjeyw 8y ago
I wonder if this is one of those few genuine uses for a blockchain based system. Comments (tweets) would be posted on a very thin layer of technology, which would only support say:
- comment id
- comment text
- datetime of comment
- commenting user id
- list of [upvoting/downvoting] user id
- list of reply comment ids
As you say, third parties could then come along and build whatever front-end they see fit. Don't want to show or allow clients to downvote? Go for it! Only aggregate upvotes from user ids over a certain age? Be my guest! The underlying information would never change.
Operating costs would be funded by transaction fees, whatever that specific blockchain model may be.
- osrec 8y agoBut why blockchain?
- enjeyw 8y agoBecause the underlying message service wouldn't be controlled by any single entity. This would mean that once the code was out there, you could be confident that no-one would change the service when there was a change of CEO or new censorship laws brought in or something like that; we'd have a neutral piece of underlying infrastructure that anyone could use to build a robust discussion platform on top of.