osama

channels

/channels are better #hashtags.
you cannot “own” a #, you cannot moderate or control it. but with the mechanisms around /channels, it makes the #hashtags programmable (maybe not the right word). eg a brand can only allow their super fans to post to social under a tag … 
/blessed > #blessed

I think it's more of a perception thing. 

There's nothing stopping hashtags behave similarly to channels and vice-versa. 
In fact, at the protocol level channels only exist as a label attached to a cast, and any individual can put any label they want. 

ATM all the access, and ownership features are only based on Warpcast infrastructure, thus totally centralized. 

So practically the facts are: 

- The biggest difference between a channel and a hashtag is the start symbol and the marketing around it. 

- All features of hashtags and channels are mostly interchangeable, both could be ownable/non-ownable, both could be restricted/non-restricted, both could be followed/unfollowed, etc.

Software developer, open source enthusiast, privacy advocate.

Clear Wallet Open-source privacy focused wallet: https://clear-wallet.flashsoft.eu/


Got it.

I hope is not 5 years out though... 

Maybe it's just me but things at the protocol level move pretty slowly already.

I know generally the trajectory is developing this additional protocol(Warpcast backend) and then maybe integrating stuff in the farcaster protocol, but I don't like this approach at all. 

I would have preferred changes directly at the protocol level, with 0 to no centralized protocol extensions, maximum transparency maximum decentralization this is Web3 ethos. 

Open source, permissionless, nothing hidden is what I desire anything less than that should not be called web3. 

I am and will always be a decentralization maxi.

yes yes yes... i assumed the ultimate final, protocol based version of the channel-like mechanism for social.

disclaimer: i talk 5years out and less present day most times, lol