Farcaster

Why is it that storage is twice as expensive for reactions than for casts? Surely people react more than they cast? And also in terms of data used, storing a like should require less storage than storing the entire content of a cast, right?

I've been here for a little over two weeks and I've already used 20% of my allocation for reactions. That seems problematic.

Computational biologist, data scientist, digital artist | 
https://clauswilke.art/links | Hosting /ai-art & /clauswilke

I realize infrastructure must be paid for and I'm not complaining about limits in principle. But constraints shape behavior. Do we want a platform where people are worried about liking or recasting? 2500 reactions a year is <7 / day. Surely we want people to do more than that?

I make digital art that explores how we express ourselves together.
Pursuing an onchain life lived truly and happily. art.cocreated.xyz/chris 🎈 wearethe.art

I'd say then just make this design decision explicit and have them disappear after x amount of time.

my guess is that reactions are designed to be ephemeral

This is the explanation I've seen. I know there have been previous discussions about how these limits affect behavior, so perhaps others will chime in.

Writer, senior editor, music journalist, GenX eldergoth, Moxiesplainer. https://paragraph.xyz/@danicaswanson https://tinyurl.com/Black-Stone-Wordsmith

Maybe, but if you do the math it just doesn't add up for me. There's no way 2500 reactions require more than 1MB of storage. So 1GB of storage (~500 images or 1h of video) requires the equivalent of 1000 storage units, or $7000 / year.

This is the explanation I've seen. I know there have been previous discussions about how these limits affect behavior, so perhaps others will chime in.

https://warpcast.com/v/0x06407001