54 ms·

You see no benefit in Apps that cannot be "disappeared" by anyone (even the person who deployed it), and which scales without bound and can be composed (re-skin

You see no benefit in Apps that cannot be "disappeared" by anyone (even the person who deployed it), and which scales without bound and can be composed (re-skinned or extended) without restriction? Or, forked and restricted to your own cryptographically identified and secured set of users?

ctvo 4y ago
Can you answer the question with use cases and examples instead of this rhetorical question? It doesn't help your credibility when you can't list off 10-20 use cases and examples for your groundbreaking technology without contorting yourself.
- pjkundert 4y ago
  I'm sorry; but isn't this sort of like demanding an answer to the question "I can't see a use for the motorcar; horses work just fine"?
  - Tesl 4y ago
    no
  - jrek 4y ago
    Not at all, in the sense that if you were asked THAT question, you’d easily be able to come up with a convincing answer.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
What is the value proposition of "can't be disappeared by anyone" exactly? Reversibility and deletability are actually features of most systems. Scales without bound is cool, but generally lacks use and is expensive. I would rather scale to my actual usage bounds rather than paying for infinite scalability. Composed without restriction is cool, but I got that with the MIT and BSD licenses. Forked and restricted has already been possible using traditional open-source computer infrastructure.