Quilibrium

I don’t think we need to say anything else today but this (tweet). 

Let the world know why decentralized social matters, it’s bigger than just blockchains — it’s about freedom.

https://x.com/binji_x/status/1827495331715563911?s=46

I at first thought @binji.eth was talking about /quilibrium

lore @optimism | ex: @coinbase | views are my own | what if it all worked out? 

An art & tech aficionado.  I love mountains, dogs, and 67 degree weather.  

There is nothing preventing farcaster to run on quilibrium as I understand it

BDFL of Quilibrium, Eng @ Farcaster, ex-Coinbase, always opinionated, never hydrated

/quilibrium

Code & 
Deploy | 
Testing | 
Testing | EU GMT+1 & 
Out of office at weekends

All well stated. In case you would like retain backward compatibility.
Or we could just use Q instead of hubble and create a farcaster v2 on it forgetting farcaster v1.
Not saying we should but we could if needed to.

I think you'd be correct.  You'd have to build adapters for the RPC schemas into Q that match Farcaster, but yeah, you could.

I will clarify my thoughts, as I'm sure I'm making assumptions here and @cassie can fact check me (if you please):

The biggest block to using FC on Quil would be that the data lives in a Hubbles that are replicated out and are queriable for data.

A person could create an "App" on Quil that would have the same RPC data schema/endpoints that match exactly and could try to import a Hubble's data into Quil and then that "App" could be queried.  

However, FC would have to support a Q (honestly, it might be a good idea to get rid of Hubbles and their syncing issues and use Q entirely for the backend) or a person would have to add an additional level of abstraction in the form of a proxy to receive requests like it was a Hubble, form the requests to send to Q, get the data from Q, and then return as if it were a Hubble.

Anyways... my initial 2 cents with no deep FC domain knowledge.