KMac🍌 ⏩ on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

vrypan |--o--| pfp

During the discussion about the Ordering FIP, we practically identified three different network state models, and I think we should be aware of them. Each one has its pros and cons, and makes some use cases simpler and some harder. - Global-state oriented (current model, most probably future model too) - User-state oriented - App-state oriented Depending on how current and future apps want to use the network, each model offers advantages and disadvantages. For example, for a twitter-like app, think Warpcast and Supercast, the global-state oriented model is the best fit. If you're interested in knowing what only specific users do and not the whole network, a user-state model would be a better fit. And if you mostly care about what users do within a special-purpose app (@kmacb.eth's d33m.com comes to mind, or maybe a channel-specific app like @purple has been discussing for some time) then an app-specific model seems better.

5 replies

2 recasts

11 reactions

KMac🍌 ⏩ pfp

I only see open innovation & growth with app state & overwhelming constraints & coordination bottlenecks with global state. ie submit to wc & pray there’s a different game to play. FC is a data verification, storage & sync protocol. The need for this FIP has little to do with app lead protocol development & more to do with sins of the past. Now is a great time lay a wider more open path forward & create a lasting legacy. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Many apps & at least one protocol are vampiring FC. It will get worse w global state. Free the protocol.

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

vrypan |--o--| pfp

For the record, I'm not commenting on the FIP, but the three models that were practically identified during the discussion. I have mixed thoughts about vamping. I think @dwr.eth has written here he's ok with it (and I'd love to be convinced).

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

maurelian pfp

Which protocol is vampiring?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction