5 ms·

I get mostly the same features with self-hosted and local traditional apps for a fraction of the price and much lower general financial risk as well.

selestify 5y ago
The person you're replying to has already addressed your points: > Yes, blockchains are slower and more expensive. This is the current cost of enabling the two facets above. If we're not comparing blockchain dapps to other systems that offer the same assurances, then we're comparing apples and oranges. Could you please respond more meaningfully to the conversation?
- jjnoakes 5y ago
  I thought I did... That quoted paragraph doesn't negate my point which is that I do get the same (or very similar) assurances elsewhere, so I think the comparison is valid.
  - selestify 5y ago
    Ah my bad, I thought you were focusing on the features rather than the assurances. I'll respond to the other comment you made.
    - jjnoakes 5y ago
      To me the two words (feature and assurance) are synonyms in this discussion. I meant both above.
- DannyBee 5y ago
  They didn't address the points - they tried to say nobody gets to compare other things unless they do <the two facets that dapps offer>. Which is wrong.
  - selestify 5y ago
    They said it's an apples to oranges comparison unless both things do <the two facets that dapps offer>. Which is absolutely correct. You could compare apples to oranges if you wanted to... but usually there's no point in doing so.
    - DannyBee 5y ago
      As I said to OP, no, it's not apples to oranges, you are absolutely wrong. It's comparisons of different points in the app architecture space, and that's normal, and not pointless as you claim. You can't wave away the serious issues by saying "there's no point in comparing them" Lots of things offer different functionality and tradeoffs. If you want to play in the space of "web app", you can and should be compared to things that are solutions for producing "web apps". We compare codeless web apps to code ones, etc. The same way people compare gas and electric vehicles. Or minivans and suvs and trucks. Or, well, everything in a solution space. Any solution for a given use case can and should get compared with other solutions for that use case. I'm really sorry that it doesn't seem (judging by this thread) to compare particularly well for most developers, but that doesn't invalidate the comparison.
      - selestify 5y ago
        > Any solution for a given use case can and should get compared with other solutions for that use case. And the current use cases are sufficiently different that it's like comparing apples and oranges. > I'm really sorry that it doesn't seem (judging by this thread) to compare particularly well for most developers, but that doesn't invalidate the comparison. Again, do you think the same of Tor? It doesn't compare particularly well by most mainstream metrics. High latency, low bandwidth. And yet it serves a lot of value to a lot of people. But then some smartass goes and says "It's completely useless tech, I can host a simple static website on clearnet for much less hassle." Yeah, duh, but that's not the point of Tor. Go use the clearnet if that's what you're looking to do.
        DannyBee 5y ago
v64 5y ago
"mostly" being the key word :) If you're self-hosting, then your server is a weak point. It goes down, your app goes down. The additional cost and risk that comes with using blockchains provides a platform for your app to run on that you don't have to manage and is highly resistant to being shut down. Likewise, there always exists the possibility that your server can be compromised and the code can be altered. The immutability of the blockchain guarantees that your code cannot be changed, with or without your knowledge.
- jjnoakes 5y ago
  There are easy mitigations for those things though. My self hosted apps run on immutable infrastructure and are replicated and load balanced. Still stupid cheap and easy.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - selestify 5y ago
    > My self hosted apps run on immutable infrastructure and are replicated and load balanced What? Assuming you live in the US, the government can swoop in at any time (provided they have a legal reason to do so) and demand that AWS or whoever's hosting your servers shuts them down. If you're hosting them yourself, they can raid the physical locations where you host them. If you're not in the US, I'm sure your country has equivalent security forces that would be more than capable of doing the same should the government find a reason to. Good luck raiding every single Ethereum node in the world to take down a smart contract. Also, you didn't address code immutability guarantees. You can change your server code at any time and your users would be none the wiser. The darknet markets, once compromised by federal agents, did exactly this, and stopped actually encrypting user messages with PGP while continuing to pretend to do so. A smart contract, unless it has upgradeability built in, offers just this sort of guarantee to its users. Oh, and if your app deals with finance, and the US government (or your own) wants you to stop letting John Doe use your app because they just placed new sanctions on Mr. Doe? You'd better code that compliance feature up real quick or see yourself getting heavily fined or even imprisoned. Tough luck doing that sort of censorship on the blockchain -- as long as a single miner is willing to include that user's transaction, they're basically in.
miracle2k 5y ago
But no one else can use your app with the same guarantees you give to yourself, while also being able to share state with you.
- jjnoakes 5y ago
  Is that true though? If two people run self hosted apps that can communicate, all you have to verify is the data passing between. What assurances are you missing?
  - miracle2k 5y ago
    They can communicate, but if they want to agree on shared state between them, they have to solve the same problem that blockchains seek to solve, and the options available to you there are essentially on a spectrum of how many people are going to participate and to what extend you can vet them.
    - withinboredom 5y ago
      I don’t think multiplayer games are running a blockchain and they agree on shared state. Humans being humans tend to reject cheaters who manipulate the state in their favor. But you don’t need a blockchain for any of this, and in fact, it’s too slow to have shared state /in real time/.
      - spijdar 5y ago
        While I'm not really big on "Blockchain all the things!" this might be a poor analogy, considering just how many big multiplayer games use very intrusive, almost rootkit level anticheat software to, effectively, try and force all clients to behave and share state fairly...
        withinboredom 5y ago
        Hmm. Might be a poor analogy then. I’ve never had any issues with anti-cheat software or ever noticed it’s existence — other than an icon on a splash page.
vmception 5y ago
If blockchain is more expensive than cloud for you, the person that launched the product, then you architected your project wrong Blockchain products are write once, read free, persist forever for free. Your users pay to interact. Every SaaS funnel person knows that of you get users to pay at all then you have filtered the funnel to larger payments already. Blockchakn projects are that funnel in warp speed.
- jjnoakes 5y ago
  I disagree. The cost of just deploying my contract might pay for years of self hosting at current transaction rates. It might eventually amortize out to cheaper over many, many years, but that assumes no changes are ever needed. How likely is that?
  - vmception 5y ago
    You could use any other EVM or smart contract platform than Ethereum
    - tata71 5y ago
      zkEVM
landemva 5y ago
How does your local hosted setup move value/money in a way that others trust it?

selestify 5y ago

The person you're replying to has already addressed your points: > Yes, blockchains are slower and more expensive. This is the current cost of enabling the two facets above. If we're not comparing blockchain dapps to other systems that offer the same assurances, then we're comparing apples and oranges. Could you please respond more meaningfully to the conversation?

jjnoakes 5y ago
I thought I did... That quoted paragraph doesn't negate my point which is that I do get the same (or very similar) assurances elsewhere, so I think the comparison is valid.
- selestify 5y ago
  Ah my bad, I thought you were focusing on the features rather than the assurances. I'll respond to the other comment you made.
  - jjnoakes 5y ago
    To me the two words (feature and assurance) are synonyms in this discussion. I meant both above.
DannyBee 5y ago
They didn't address the points - they tried to say nobody gets to compare other things unless they do <the two facets that dapps offer>. Which is wrong.
- selestify 5y ago
  They said it's an apples to oranges comparison unless both things do <the two facets that dapps offer>. Which is absolutely correct. You could compare apples to oranges if you wanted to... but usually there's no point in doing so.
  - DannyBee 5y ago
    As I said to OP, no, it's not apples to oranges, you are absolutely wrong. It's comparisons of different points in the app architecture space, and that's normal, and not pointless as you claim. You can't wave away the serious issues by saying "there's no point in comparing them" Lots of things offer different functionality and tradeoffs. If you want to play in the space of "web app", you can and should be compared to things that are solutions for producing "web apps". We compare codeless web apps to code ones, etc. The same way people compare gas and electric vehicles. Or minivans and suvs and trucks. Or, well, everything in a solution space. Any solution for a given use case can and should get compared with other solutions for that use case. I'm really sorry that it doesn't seem (judging by this thread) to compare particularly well for most developers, but that doesn't invalidate the comparison.
    - selestify 5y ago
      > Any solution for a given use case can and should get compared with other solutions for that use case. And the current use cases are sufficiently different that it's like comparing apples and oranges. > I'm really sorry that it doesn't seem (judging by this thread) to compare particularly well for most developers, but that doesn't invalidate the comparison. Again, do you think the same of Tor? It doesn't compare particularly well by most mainstream metrics. High latency, low bandwidth. And yet it serves a lot of value to a lot of people. But then some smartass goes and says "It's completely useless tech, I can host a simple static website on clearnet for much less hassle." Yeah, duh, but that's not the point of Tor. Go use the clearnet if that's what you're looking to do.
      - DannyBee 5y ago

v64 5y ago

"mostly" being the key word :) If you're self-hosting, then your server is a weak point. It goes down, your app goes down. The additional cost and risk that comes with using blockchains provides a platform for your app to run on that you don't have to manage and is highly resistant to being shut down. Likewise, there always exists the possibility that your server can be compromised and the code can be altered. The immutability of the blockchain guarantees that your code cannot be changed, with or without your knowledge.

jjnoakes 5y ago
There are easy mitigations for those things though. My self hosted apps run on immutable infrastructure and are replicated and load balanced. Still stupid cheap and easy.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- selestify 5y ago
  > My self hosted apps run on immutable infrastructure and are replicated and load balanced What? Assuming you live in the US, the government can swoop in at any time (provided they have a legal reason to do so) and demand that AWS or whoever's hosting your servers shuts them down. If you're hosting them yourself, they can raid the physical locations where you host them. If you're not in the US, I'm sure your country has equivalent security forces that would be more than capable of doing the same should the government find a reason to. Good luck raiding every single Ethereum node in the world to take down a smart contract. Also, you didn't address code immutability guarantees. You can change your server code at any time and your users would be none the wiser. The darknet markets, once compromised by federal agents, did exactly this, and stopped actually encrypting user messages with PGP while continuing to pretend to do so. A smart contract, unless it has upgradeability built in, offers just this sort of guarantee to its users. Oh, and if your app deals with finance, and the US government (or your own) wants you to stop letting John Doe use your app because they just placed new sanctions on Mr. Doe? You'd better code that compliance feature up real quick or see yourself getting heavily fined or even imprisoned. Tough luck doing that sort of censorship on the blockchain -- as long as a single miner is willing to include that user's transaction, they're basically in.

miracle2k 5y ago

But no one else can use your app with the same guarantees you give to yourself, while also being able to share state with you.

jjnoakes 5y ago
Is that true though? If two people run self hosted apps that can communicate, all you have to verify is the data passing between. What assurances are you missing?
- miracle2k 5y ago
  They can communicate, but if they want to agree on shared state between them, they have to solve the same problem that blockchains seek to solve, and the options available to you there are essentially on a spectrum of how many people are going to participate and to what extend you can vet them.
  - withinboredom 5y ago
    I don’t think multiplayer games are running a blockchain and they agree on shared state. Humans being humans tend to reject cheaters who manipulate the state in their favor. But you don’t need a blockchain for any of this, and in fact, it’s too slow to have shared state /in real time/.
    - spijdar 5y ago
      While I'm not really big on "Blockchain all the things!" this might be a poor analogy, considering just how many big multiplayer games use very intrusive, almost rootkit level anticheat software to, effectively, try and force all clients to behave and share state fairly...
      - withinboredom 5y ago
        Hmm. Might be a poor analogy then. I’ve never had any issues with anti-cheat software or ever noticed it’s existence — other than an icon on a splash page.

vmception 5y ago

If blockchain is more expensive than cloud for you, the person that launched the product, then you architected your project wrong Blockchain products are write once, read free, persist forever for free. Your users pay to interact. Every SaaS funnel person knows that of you get users to pay at all then you have filtered the funnel to larger payments already. Blockchakn projects are that funnel in warp speed.

jjnoakes 5y ago
I disagree. The cost of just deploying my contract might pay for years of self hosting at current transaction rates. It might eventually amortize out to cheaper over many, many years, but that assumes no changes are ever needed. How likely is that?
- vmception 5y ago
  You could use any other EVM or smart contract platform than Ethereum
  - tata71 5y ago
    zkEVM

landemva 5y ago

How does your local hosted setup move value/money in a way that others trust it?