5 ms·

I would imagine it's just the GitHub part. It's an alternative to GitHub, not Git. There already are many such alternatives, they're just not using Nostr or Act

I would imagine it's just the GitHub part. It's an alternative to GitHub, not Git. There already are many such alternatives, they're just not using Nostr or ActivityPub, they're not... "decentralised social network", and that is what this bounty is looking for. Personally, I wouldn't dare try to compete with GitLab, let alone try to take on GitHub, for a measly 10 BTC. But someone more optimistic than me might, and good luck to them.

BaculumMeumEst 4y ago
It’s just hurting my brain because git is already decentralized by design, and frontends are too in a sense. Anyone can clone a GitHub repo and put it up on their own web frontend or just serve the repo directly. I guess other people value the “social media” aspect of it more than I do? I don’t really care if I’m interfacing with github or gitlab or codeberg or huggingface or sourcehut or whatever. Git is git.
- codetrotter 4y ago
  Yes git is decentralised by design. Like parent commenter said, this is about all of the other features of GitHub. The issues, the stars, the followers. The social network that MS paid $$$ for. We need a decentralised alternative to GitHub that lets everyone do everything they are using GitHub for today, without the involvement of any big companies that rule over our social networks. That is what Jack Dorsey is asking for. That is what we don’t have today. We need a decentralised social network with GitHub features which makes it so that we can create an account anywhere and use that same account everywhere, across servers. So that there can be a billion GitHub alternative servers with all of the GitHub features, and you can communicate across instances without being beholden to the owners of any single one instance too much. Jack Dorsey wants this to happen on top of the Nostr protocol specifically. But yes, if you try to understand all of this from an angle of “git is git” then it might not seem to make sense. But that’s because it’s not about git. It’s about everything social around it.
  - BaculumMeumEst 4y ago
    That makes sense, and it would be cool to have. In most of the open source circles I run in, people are pretty openly hostile to anything web3, so they probably would opt to stay on their alternative hosting platforms. But perhaps there are enough web3 people to use it? I’m curious to see how it plays out and what kind of development takes place on there. How do you think the bounty will play out, by the way? Will whatever is developed be open source? Who do you think will oversee maintenance?
    - pocketarc 4y ago
      It might be worth clarifying that this isn't related to web3, it would just be a federated network, similar to Mastodon and the like. Jack Dorsey paying for it with BTC or USD doesn't make it web3 or not.

BaculumMeumEst 4y ago

It’s just hurting my brain because git is already decentralized by design, and frontends are too in a sense. Anyone can clone a GitHub repo and put it up on their own web frontend or just serve the repo directly. I guess other people value the “social media” aspect of it more than I do? I don’t really care if I’m interfacing with github or gitlab or codeberg or huggingface or sourcehut or whatever. Git is git.

codetrotter 4y ago
Yes git is decentralised by design. Like parent commenter said, this is about all of the other features of GitHub. The issues, the stars, the followers. The social network that MS paid $$$ for. We need a decentralised alternative to GitHub that lets everyone do everything they are using GitHub for today, without the involvement of any big companies that rule over our social networks. That is what Jack Dorsey is asking for. That is what we don’t have today. We need a decentralised social network with GitHub features which makes it so that we can create an account anywhere and use that same account everywhere, across servers. So that there can be a billion GitHub alternative servers with all of the GitHub features, and you can communicate across instances without being beholden to the owners of any single one instance too much. Jack Dorsey wants this to happen on top of the Nostr protocol specifically. But yes, if you try to understand all of this from an angle of “git is git” then it might not seem to make sense. But that’s because it’s not about git. It’s about everything social around it.
- BaculumMeumEst 4y ago
  That makes sense, and it would be cool to have. In most of the open source circles I run in, people are pretty openly hostile to anything web3, so they probably would opt to stay on their alternative hosting platforms. But perhaps there are enough web3 people to use it? I’m curious to see how it plays out and what kind of development takes place on there. How do you think the bounty will play out, by the way? Will whatever is developed be open source? Who do you think will oversee maintenance?
  - pocketarc 4y ago
    It might be worth clarifying that this isn't related to web3, it would just be a federated network, similar to Mastodon and the like. Jack Dorsey paying for it with BTC or USD doesn't make it web3 or not.