4 ms·

"Run it against your Bitcoin Cash Node to process Memo transactions into a database." Since the protocol of this is based on inscribing transactions into the B

"Run it against your Bitcoin Cash Node to process Memo transactions into a database." Since the protocol of this is based on inscribing transactions into the Bitcoin Cash blockchain, that means posting content will cost transaction fees. In this case, it seems the server operator is expected to pay for that. According to bitcoinfees.cash it's currently at $0.0025 per inscription.

FreeTrade 6y ago
Yes, each action on the blockchain requires a small transaction fee but the fee is paid by the end user, not the server operator. There are advantages and disadvantages to this, but remember the old saying, 'if you're not paying for a product, you are the product.'
- sneak 6y ago
  That old saying doesn't flip around to mean that any service you have to pay for is worth the cost. I personally don't want to use niche social networks, which is what any pay-to-play platform is, due to the barrier to entry.
  - rorykoehler 6y ago
    It's a feature not a bug. How many trolls will disappear if you have to pay to post? It brings other problems like economic disenfranchisement leading to social disenfranchisement for those less fortunate in the world but it is an interesting design experiment.
    - sneak 6y ago
      Most of the people I wish to read or interact with on social networks will never use a system that requires an up front payment. To me (and, I assume, most people) it is most assuredly a bug.
      - rorykoehler 6y ago
        That may change though. Say we brought in UBI to solve the problems I described above. At the same time twitter is over run by bots making engaging there even more exhausting than it is now. Maybe your peer group have been banned because of one thing or another. Would you consider it then?
        thombat 6y ago
        Once a Member instance is big enough to be attractive for spamming/phishing/otherwise-exploiting the bot herders will arrive anyway, using compromised Member clients, just as current spammers don't generally pay for the data volumes they generate. Perhaps the entry barrier of charging will keep Member small enough to delay this.
        retpirato 6y ago
        "Delay" is the key word. Not prevent. Any service big enough too attract more than "fringe" users will start seeing spammers eventually.
- INTPenis 6y ago
  Ok but normally you pay for bandwidth and storage, but here you have to pay for the ability to store a message. While someone else pays for bandwidth, compute and storage. You just added another expense without solving anything.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    Perhaps it’ll make people think twice before posting, which would be a blessing on the world if looking at the standard of 98% of Twitter posts.

FreeTrade 6y ago

Yes, each action on the blockchain requires a small transaction fee but the fee is paid by the end user, not the server operator. There are advantages and disadvantages to this, but remember the old saying, 'if you're not paying for a product, you are the product.'

sneak 6y ago
That old saying doesn't flip around to mean that any service you have to pay for is worth the cost. I personally don't want to use niche social networks, which is what any pay-to-play platform is, due to the barrier to entry.
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  It's a feature not a bug. How many trolls will disappear if you have to pay to post? It brings other problems like economic disenfranchisement leading to social disenfranchisement for those less fortunate in the world but it is an interesting design experiment.
  - sneak 6y ago
    Most of the people I wish to read or interact with on social networks will never use a system that requires an up front payment. To me (and, I assume, most people) it is most assuredly a bug.
    - rorykoehler 6y ago
      That may change though. Say we brought in UBI to solve the problems I described above. At the same time twitter is over run by bots making engaging there even more exhausting than it is now. Maybe your peer group have been banned because of one thing or another. Would you consider it then?
      - thombat 6y ago
        Once a Member instance is big enough to be attractive for spamming/phishing/otherwise-exploiting the bot herders will arrive anyway, using compromised Member clients, just as current spammers don't generally pay for the data volumes they generate. Perhaps the entry barrier of charging will keep Member small enough to delay this.
        retpirato 6y ago
        "Delay" is the key word. Not prevent. Any service big enough too attract more than "fringe" users will start seeing spammers eventually.
INTPenis 6y ago
Ok but normally you pay for bandwidth and storage, but here you have to pay for the ability to store a message. While someone else pays for bandwidth, compute and storage. You just added another expense without solving anything.
- brigandish 6y ago
  Perhaps it’ll make people think twice before posting, which would be a blessing on the world if looking at the standard of 98% of Twitter posts.