5 ms·

>The architecture was like the most hardcore people from some deeply political place like the GNU project (it's Apache licensed, I mean more in terms of ethos)

>The architecture was like the most hardcore people from some deeply political place like the GNU project (it's Apache licensed, I mean more in terms of ethos) got together to make the least monetizable architecture they could. Content is hosted on any HTTP server, servers are run by anybody who wants, and there's no lock-in whatsoever. It horrified content creators. Sounds awesome.

dale_glass 3y ago
So I thought! But within an hour there I was completely baffled as to how it was going to ever make any money. The overall architecture seems a better fit for a deeply ideological small group of people trying to live on donations, than a commercial company. So eventually it died, we picked it up, and now have a non-profit.
- imtringued 3y ago
  Come on this is literally the only scenario where NFTs make sense. Cross game support of NFTs make no sense because the developers see zero incentives to allow competing content but if it is the same game hosted by a variety of people then on hundreds of servers then interoperability has the benefit that your content will be available on other servers and therefore you also have incentives to accept other people's content. The only problem is that Blockchain is too expensive. Who wants to pay excessive fees for inconsequential in-game items? Who wants to host a full Ethereum node? Hardly anyone.
  - dale_glass 3y ago
    The code isn't a good fit for supporting any sort of ownership, including NFTs. They would be trivial to rip and anyone could use your expensive junk without paying for it. There's not a good system of ownership and asset control either. And as a project we're ideologically opposed to cryptocurrency and NFTs and just finished ripping out the remains of the Blockchain code from the original project.

5 ms·

>The architecture was like the most hardcore people from some deeply political place like the GNU project (it's Apache licensed, I mean more in terms of ethos)

by RobotToaster 3y ago

dale_glass 3y ago
So I thought! But within an hour there I was completely baffled as to how it was going to ever make any money. The overall architecture seems a better fit for a deeply ideological small group of people trying to live on donations, than a commercial company. So eventually it died, we picked it up, and now have a non-profit.
- imtringued 3y ago
  Come on this is literally the only scenario where NFTs make sense. Cross game support of NFTs make no sense because the developers see zero incentives to allow competing content but if it is the same game hosted by a variety of people then on hundreds of servers then interoperability has the benefit that your content will be available on other servers and therefore you also have incentives to accept other people's content. The only problem is that Blockchain is too expensive. Who wants to pay excessive fees for inconsequential in-game items? Who wants to host a full Ethereum node? Hardly anyone.
  - dale_glass 3y ago
    The code isn't a good fit for supporting any sort of ownership, including NFTs. They would be trivial to rip and anyone could use your expensive junk without paying for it. There's not a good system of ownership and asset control either. And as a project we're ideologically opposed to cryptocurrency and NFTs and just finished ripping out the remains of the Blockchain code from the original project.