3 ms·
That may work. Though it will also exclude people that can't afford it. I'm thinking of poor people and children. The kind of people who use computers at the l
by ansible 5y ago
That may work.
Though it will also exclude people that can't afford it. I'm thinking of poor people and children. The kind of people who use computers at the local library, because they can't afford their own device (and more expensively) the Internet connection to make it useful.
And yes, I realize that some of the above groups are also absolute shits, who I would keep off the Internet (if I could) until they decided to grow up.
- ssl232 5y agoIt's not $10 per site, it's $10 one off. You would get the money back almost immediately if your request is not abusive. I'd be interested to know how many twitter users couldn't scrape together a once off $10.
- CydeWeys 5y agoSo who's going to fund this adjudicatory system? Because lots of little $10 deposits, that are fully refundable, won't do it.
- ssl232 5y agoYou should ask Michael Saylor to be sure how he proposes this will all work, but he did mention his company (MicroStrategy) spends $1M/year on DDOS mitigation. I expect if Lightning ends up as cheap and fast as he and others are saying it will be, it could be funded by companies as a cost of doing business in the same way they fund the electricity and hardware for serving their websites. It's actually the sort of thing I could see CloudFlare etc. providing, so each website doesn't need to implement it themselves.
- devteambravo 5y agoWho decides whether your request is abusive?
- ssl232 5y agoThe site. They stake their reputation on being fair. Unfair sites will lose users. This is basically what happens already with moderation, it's just adding a small monetary penalty to bad actors to discourage them.