Leeward Bound on Warpcast

Geoff Golberg pfp

Farcaster isn’t a true protocol Just enough theater to get developers' trust

8 replies

2 recasts

18 reactions

FarcasterMarketing pfp

FarcasterMarketing

@quillingqualia.eth

Say more? What's a true protocol and why farcaster isn't one?

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Leeward Bound pfp

+ only one server by only one company, no node diversity + majority client has non-open features + regular proto changes, non stable + all major changes come from one central actor it's a protocol by definition, but as far as protocols go, it's not a good one. unwise to build in this ecosystem, especially when you see major builders getting their whole platform obviated by flippant breaking changes. nobody sane would try competing with Hubble or Warpcast (unless they have 8 figures to burn thru) and that is a significant problem for the whole "open protocol" argument. this is merkel land and merkel will make or break rules to sink any serious competition.

2 replies

1 recast

16 reactions

Dan Romero pfp

1. There are plenty of Hubs. 2. Multiple clients that work fine with centralized requirement. 3. What *protocol* changes are frequent and non-stable? 4. Who else is proposing, building consensus and then writing the code for the changes?

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Leeward Bound pfp

1) but only 1 Hub software and no incentive to run them, Google "what is client diversity" then get back to me 2) but one megafunded official majority client that doesn't fully share critical features like channel creation, DMs, closed source Shuttle 3) you introduced longcasts with less than 24h notice, you're turning channels upside down, and also any private non-proto features from #2 that you push should count against the "stable protocol" argument too, as all competing clients must match them and keep up to stand any chance of actually replacing warpcast as anyone's primary client 4) nobody is dumb enough to try to compete with you in your own billion dollar sandbox where you are judge and jury, why do you keep pretending this is viable? got any examples of you interacting in good faith with critics from your community? general vibe is widely agreed that you do not. these replies certainly do not count. #opensourcewarpcast (proud to boast that i started that slogan and repeated it until it spread)

5 replies

0 recast

5 reactions

Dan Romero pfp

This feels like it’s getting unnecessarily personal (Google and then get back to me), so will try to keep it focused on the issues. 1. What current problem does Hub implementation diversity solve? 2. Shuttle is open source. We built it with feedback from folks like Neynar and Airstack. DCs and channel creation will be decentralized after we stop iterating on the core surface area. We don’t want to have many breaking changes for protocol primitives. 3. Long casts were a backward compatible change. If it was breaking we would have moved slower. We also reach out to the developers in the ecosystem that regularly attend the open dev calls, have clients with a large number of active signers and anyone who reaches out to us. 4…

1 reply

1 recast

5 reactions

Leeward Bound pfp

ok i have slept, meditated, and taken a calming walk, i would like to try to offer some gentle but heartfelt counterpoints - 0) re: "too personal" - i think a large part of public perception you provide bad CS is a low bar for disqualifying someone's whole POV. from where i sit, it seems a strategic pattern used frequently to dodge hard questions. today you kept "focus on the issues" (good), but if a cheeky "Google it" crosses your line, your line needs adjustment. you're a founder in a very public arena, not a k-12 teacher. we are in your fiefdom, punching up. i chided "Google it" because i know you know what node/client "diversity" means wrt proto. what i don't know is why you'd make point #1 about anything else - i was citing issues with the protocol and said "no node diversity" and your reply "plenty of people run Hubs" was redirection. so yeah, talk about my actual point or ask gpt what i meant by it. tone policing me here was, imho, victimizing yourself. but you are big and i am small, emperor.

1 reply

1 recast

4 reactions

Leeward Bound pfp

1) it solves centralized node development by solely the protocol issuer. it solves the bus-factor; the whole network dies if WC/Merkle disappears tomorrow. you aren't fully in control of this one but you should already have massive bounties posted for competing node research. 2) OK shuttle is open (another dev told me it's not, i don't attend dev calls or follow proto dev closely). not the point here. point #2 started as "majority client has non-open features". if WC (fe+be) was open, you could iterate on non-proto features in public before adding to proto, and SC/Kiosk could reasonably compete as first class clients (by just copying the code for nonstable features if they choose), instead of "that other app i use for my alt account". as long as the WC featureset has closed functionality, you are using your position as proto-lord to maintain a steep competitive advantage for WC. if eth launched and EF funded official VitalikClient w closed features and no true competitors, there'd be no eth today. study EF.

2 replies

0 recast

2 reactions

Leeward Bound pfp

3) OK as your own employee replied, snapchain might be a better example here. im gonna cede my original #3 point because the frequency of protocol changes isn't terribly high, i worded that poorly, but nevertheless the *risk* of you changing the protocol at whim *still exists* and *is not unfounded*. 4) im sure it was an oversight but you skipped my #4 and responded to my next paragraph (hf "#5"). nobody else is building protocol changes, yes that is the problem. i repeat from my #1 here - fund other developers to build competitive nodes and clients. big big bounties. you fundraised and launched this network - and we joined - promising a decentralized system (not a twitter clone with fragmented clients) and that means top-to-bottom software diversity and decentralized development, full stop. pull some seats up to the table and pay your biggest critics (not me) to participate and check/balance your power, until you are no longer a critical/singular centerpiece of the ecosystem. start a DAO. de-central-ize.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Leeward Bound pfp

this is #5 now - no no no onus is not on me. that would be if this was a formal debate or a scientific forum, if we were on equal footing, if i had any power or anything tangible to gain or win. i asked YOU for examples, i don't have to bring you receipts from your own platform. i know you know that we alllll know there's been frequent criticism of your CS skills, "interesting content", "disengaging". you have all the tools to find examples lol. we also alllllll know there's an inner cabal, it pays to be on Dan's good side. you've set a culture that breeds sycophants. congrats on having 50+ vying for pats + scraps, but im far more impressed with the resistance group (35 in one GC, more that arent) thats come together to speak truth to power and fight you for FC's future as an open proto. you get paid to grow the community, king, we do not. you have a duty to hire CS and aggregate complaints and sincerely respond to concerns. talking to your buddies doesn't cut it. here's Google on onus; i have none here.

1 reply

1 recast

3 reactions