5 ms·

You cannot separate economics incentives from networking protocols. You need an actual sepeculative market to price and offer these services. Most of open sou

by max_ 5y ago

You cannot separate economics incentives from networking protocols. You need an actual sepeculative market to price and offer these services. Most of open source fails because they don't acknowledge this reality.

soneca 5y ago
> ” Most of open source fails because they don't acknowledge this reality.” That’s a bold statement. Most of projects that do acknowledge this reality also fail. Like all for-profit and even those web3 projects that are using cryptocurrency speculation. So I think there are tons of reasons that open source projects fail, not just because of this reason.
X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
What about bittorrent?
- max_ 5y ago
  Bittorrent is fantastic for 'altruistic' activity. But it is useless if you want to build a for profit Netflix. You may have to look at something like IPFS that accounts for economic incentives I the protocol.
  - X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
    BitTorrent was used for the blizzard updater as well as internal tech for moving around files needed on many machines at various companies. But none of that matters because it was created and was/is well used
ketralnis 5y ago
That is an extraordinary claim. Network protocols and currencies went some 60 years being unrelated to each other and I see no reason to think they won't continue right along that way after this current set of grifters finds a new set of marks
- tshaddox 5y ago
  I've heard it argued that a huge flaw of the big protocols like HTTP is that they chose to be entirely unopinionated about payments. Apparently standards bodies did discuss standards for microtransactions, for example W3C's abandoned efforts: https://www.w3.org/ECommerce/Micropayments/ https://www.w3.org/ECommerce/Micropayments/
  - SkyMarshal 5y ago
    Being opinionated about payments is not the same thing as building a speculative digital currency into your protocol.
  - giantrobot 5y ago
    When HTTP was first developed there was literally no available mechanism for micro-transactions. If HTTP had been opinionated about micro-transactions it would have been stuck with Beenz [0] or Flooz [1]. Personally I don't want an application layer protocol, especially a global standard, to be opinionated about payment methods. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beenz.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beenz.com [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooz.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooz.com
- max_ 5y ago
  > Network protocols and currencies went some 60 years being unrelated to each other and I see no reason to think they won't continue right along that way after this current set of grifters finds a new set of marks. The speculation was being done on wall street in form startups like Juniper, Cisco stock. The 'Token' of that time is the stock.

by max_ 5y ago

soneca 5y ago

> ” Most of open source fails because they don't acknowledge this reality.” That’s a bold statement. Most of projects that do acknowledge this reality also fail. Like all for-profit and even those web3 projects that are using cryptocurrency speculation. So I think there are tons of reasons that open source projects fail, not just because of this reason.

X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago

What about bittorrent?

max_ 5y ago
Bittorrent is fantastic for 'altruistic' activity. But it is useless if you want to build a for profit Netflix. You may have to look at something like IPFS that accounts for economic incentives I the protocol.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
  BitTorrent was used for the blizzard updater as well as internal tech for moving around files needed on many machines at various companies. But none of that matters because it was created and was/is well used

ketralnis 5y ago

That is an extraordinary claim. Network protocols and currencies went some 60 years being unrelated to each other and I see no reason to think they won't continue right along that way after this current set of grifters finds a new set of marks

tshaddox 5y ago
I've heard it argued that a huge flaw of the big protocols like HTTP is that they chose to be entirely unopinionated about payments. Apparently standards bodies did discuss standards for microtransactions, for example W3C's abandoned efforts: https://www.w3.org/ECommerce/Micropayments/ https://www.w3.org/ECommerce/Micropayments/
- SkyMarshal 5y ago
  Being opinionated about payments is not the same thing as building a speculative digital currency into your protocol.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  When HTTP was first developed there was literally no available mechanism for micro-transactions. If HTTP had been opinionated about micro-transactions it would have been stuck with Beenz [0] or Flooz [1]. Personally I don't want an application layer protocol, especially a global standard, to be opinionated about payment methods. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beenz.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beenz.com [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooz.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooz.com
max_ 5y ago
> Network protocols and currencies went some 60 years being unrelated to each other and I see no reason to think they won't continue right along that way after this current set of grifters finds a new set of marks. The speculation was being done on wall street in form startups like Juniper, Cisco stock. The 'Token' of that time is the stock.