Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Varun Srinivasan
@v
FIP: Reduce Storage Limits @wazzymandias.eth's proposal is up for review. it reduces the # of casts, links and reactions per storage unit to help hubs scale. https://github.com/farcasterxyz/protocol/discussions/189
46 replies
113 recasts
288 reactions
comz
@comz
never understood why reactions are so disproportional to casts. anecdotally a user may have 10x the reactions vs casts
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Jarrett
@jarrettr
Reactions just aren't as important. Do you REALLY need to go back 2000 times to see what you liked? Feels uncomfortable but people should probably just get accustomed to letting their reactions fill up and having their older ones get dropped from storage. If you really need go back it's probably just best to bookmark
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
eggman 🔵
@eggman.eth
I think he meant in terms of storage size (reactions requiring almost twice as much storage) @comz haven't looked deep into FC's own protocol setup, but generally speaking this would more be due to *how* it's stored/indexed for rapid lookup. But someone else may well correct me on that.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Jarrett
@jarrettr
I could be wrong but I don’t actually think that’s the case. I just think they’ve chosen to have less space for reactions because they aren’t nearly as important. With storage being not being dynamic it makes more sense to allocate more of the split to what actually matters, which is the content itself (casts)
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
