maurelian
@maurelian.eth
devastating blow to client diversity tho
2 replies
8 recasts
27 reactions
Samuel ツ
@samuellhuber.eth
more users -> more clients
2 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
shazow
@shazow.eth
i don't think that reasoning follows, otherwise every dominant social network would have tons of clients. perhaps the lesson is... more users -> higher temptation to consolidate and centralize -> one client?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Samuel ツ
@samuellhuber.eth
No other network is as open by default from the architecture @rish @manan and neynar wouldn’t be able to run an infra company powering a full blown super client without having Hubs to run off of There’s a reason Twitter alt clients aren’t big. API risk is real
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
shazow
@shazow.eth
Which network are we talking about? The first one, or the previous one, or the one that just launched or the next one? To be clear, I'm all for iteration, and I'm all for people speculatively investing on Farcaster's future openness, but let's not kid ourselves: When there's one dominant client, then whoever owns that client controls the network. I wouldn't be here if I wasn't willing to be charitable to Farcaster's future diversity. Concentration of power does not result in more clients. If it happens, it'll be despite that, not because of it. (I am hopeful that Farcaster will succeed despite of it!)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Samuel ツ
@samuellhuber.eth
Farcaster as network
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
shazow
@shazow.eth
Yes, which iteration of the Farcaster protocol are we talking about? The days-old Snapchain? The previous hubs implementation? The original one? The next protocol that replaces Snapchain? My point is that this is entirely mutable right now, because 99%+ of users are under one owner (especially post-Super merger).
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Samuel ツ
@samuellhuber.eth
The Farcaster spec as defined in the GitHub Snapchain is one implementation of that protocol Hubs too
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
shazow
@shazow.eth
They're different FIPs, they're different specs with different consensus models, and as I said twice: none of it matters because Warpcast can get rid of Snapchain/Hubs tomorrow and replace it with a private relational database and we have no recourse. Or if it's more familiar to imagine: Elon can buy MM, get rid of "the farcaster protocol", and there would be no practical recourse.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
