3 ms·

The problem you cite doesn't seem so common, or so large, that it is worth changing literally the entire architecture of everything over. Maybe it will be some

The problem you cite doesn't seem so common, or so large, that it is worth changing literally the entire architecture of everything over. Maybe it will be someday, but it definitely isn't today, nor does it seem to be happening particularly soon! Until developers feel like that day is coming, this neither makes sense, nor will it go anywhere. (as an aside, the non-payment one seems kind of silly, since the blockchain apps don't work without payment either - network fees, etc. Sometimes they are covered, sometimes not) You can't define away comparisons with how things are done now by saying it can only be compared with things that offer the same assurances. That makes no sense - all software architectures are tradeoffs of these sorts. Privacy vs Security vs Ease of Use vs Cost vs Performance vs ... People are quite literally going to ask themselves whether it is worth getting those features for the current cost. They aren't going to say "well, we can't compare the cost because the current system doesn't do that". They are going to say "is it worth <cost> to get these things".

v64 5y ago
> (as an aside, the non-payment one seems kind of silly, since the blockchain apps don't work without payment either - network fees, etc. Sometimes they are covered, sometimes not) There's a subtle difference here though: So long as I use AWS, I'm responsible for funding the account, and my non-payment means the app goes down. I have to continue to pay for the app to run, even if no one uses it. On a blockchain, once I've deployed my app, I can walk away and never think about the app again. I only have to pay for the initial deployment of the contract without any further ongoing cost. The app will always be there ready to be used by an end user who's willing to pay to interact with it.
mattwilsonn888 5y ago
You are implying the false pretense that the person you are replying to is arguing that Web3 technology is being properly valued and therefore should be used right now! What an easy strawman to knock over - what they are actually saying is that the vision and promise of this emerging technology layer has obvious value compared to today's standard. Man that latter statement is a real thinker in comparison.
- DannyBee 5y ago
  Your sarcasm actually doesn't fix anything, but, for all your sarcasm, you apparently didn't read very carefully. I pointed out it appears to not solve any problem that currently exists, yes. But I also qualified it by saying it doesn't solve a problem that people seem likely to have anytime soon, ie the future, either. So the latter statement you try to prop up doesn't change anything - it does not have obvious value compared to today's standard, but it also doesn't have obvious value in the future, either. So no, the latter statement is not a thinker in comparison. In fact, as i said elsewhere, there appears to have been zero diligence on product/market fit. This appears to be something that was done because they could, not because anyone actually seems to want it. Good luck on turning that vision that solves nobody's problem into a thing anyone cares about!
  - mattwilsonn888 5y ago
    Yes yes the board that vies for more sovereign web architecture and values user control and consent cannot grasp the vision behind Web3. And you wonder why sarcasm is all the energy you are worth.

v64 5y ago

> (as an aside, the non-payment one seems kind of silly, since the blockchain apps don't work without payment either - network fees, etc. Sometimes they are covered, sometimes not) There's a subtle difference here though: So long as I use AWS, I'm responsible for funding the account, and my non-payment means the app goes down. I have to continue to pay for the app to run, even if no one uses it. On a blockchain, once I've deployed my app, I can walk away and never think about the app again. I only have to pay for the initial deployment of the contract without any further ongoing cost. The app will always be there ready to be used by an end user who's willing to pay to interact with it.

mattwilsonn888 5y ago

You are implying the false pretense that the person you are replying to is arguing that Web3 technology is being properly valued and therefore should be used right now! What an easy strawman to knock over - what they are actually saying is that the vision and promise of this emerging technology layer has obvious value compared to today's standard. Man that latter statement is a real thinker in comparison.

DannyBee 5y ago
Your sarcasm actually doesn't fix anything, but, for all your sarcasm, you apparently didn't read very carefully. I pointed out it appears to not solve any problem that currently exists, yes. But I also qualified it by saying it doesn't solve a problem that people seem likely to have anytime soon, ie the future, either. So the latter statement you try to prop up doesn't change anything - it does not have obvious value compared to today's standard, but it also doesn't have obvious value in the future, either. So no, the latter statement is not a thinker in comparison. In fact, as i said elsewhere, there appears to have been zero diligence on product/market fit. This appears to be something that was done because they could, not because anyone actually seems to want it. Good luck on turning that vision that solves nobody's problem into a thing anyone cares about!
- mattwilsonn888 5y ago
  Yes yes the board that vies for more sovereign web architecture and values user control and consent cannot grasp the vision behind Web3. And you wonder why sarcasm is all the energy you are worth.