six pfp
six
@six
I was thinking, you don't really need blockchains for composability/interoperability, you just need open APIs permissionless composability, blockchains do provide but if there were theoretically some non-blockchain tech that just exposed open data, and the end-result product that takes advantage of this data is the same, then the blockchain part would not be necessary for the end product
14 replies
7 recasts
101 reactions

six pfp
six
@six
In this regard, money and markets are the real differentiator
1 reply
0 recast
18 reactions

links šŸ“ pfp
links šŸ“
@links
Twitter had open APIs at one point. So did Reddit and Facebook. I think the strength of distributed infrastructure/API is that the API provider canā€™t put the genie back in the bottle. This is something that is achieved best with a distributed system like blockchain.
2 replies
0 recast
4 reactions

sean pfp
sean
@swabbie.eth
smart contract blockchains provide: - network enforced standards - permanent distributed storage - incentivized distributed compute - compulsory distributed work compensation - intrinsic payment system
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions

Small Brain pfp
Small Brain
@0xsmallbrain
I am working on this
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

abram pfp
abram
@abram
it costs money to provide that data, which makes it hard to be truly "open"...and then there's the issue of APIs being updated/changing making maintenance hard/time consuming...both i feel like an open consensus mechanism actually is needed?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

JunyaoC pfp
JunyaoC
@junyaoc
I think blockchain still possess another quality of data ownership? Open API would indeed facilitate interoperability as you mentioned but did not guarantee immutability. I might be wrong tho
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

nicholas šŸ§Ø  pfp
nicholas šŸ§Ø
@nicholas
hard to trust they wonā€™t change tho
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions

ccarella pfp
ccarella
@ccarella.eth
there would also need to have some kind of open consensus layer so you know someone isnā€™t arbitrarily changing the data on the backend. Possible. Warpcast hubs are not onchain but have verifiable data.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions

vrypan |--o--| pfp
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
If you just need access to data, yes, this is IPFS. But if you need to trust the data source, the action that was taken, etc, then you need a source of trust. The only decentralized source of trust tech I know is blockchains.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

downshift pfp
downshift
@downshift.eth
i agree with this, but would add: a beautiful quality of blockchains is that they converge on protocol implementations that enforce 100% correctness of the data schema (other flavors of API fail at this often šŸ˜…)
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

nyc-crypto-cabal-kid pfp
nyc-crypto-cabal-kid
@zinger
As you said below, blockchains provide the unruggability guarantee and enable things to be truly permissionless (which is super cool!)
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

ethermal.eth pfp
ethermal.eth
@ethermal
Open APIs don't solve data availability and transparency.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

meta-davidšŸŽ© | Building Scoop3 pfp
meta-davidšŸŽ© | Building Scoop3
@metadavid
I can't find the cast, but I've said this for a while...open APIs have been around for a while, and I don't think touting permissionless is enough of a unique proposition to tout blockchain. Now if we say that it is an immutable single source of truth (but use layman terms), now we're talking.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Brice Yan pfp
Brice Yan
@xby
Thatā€™s a fascinating thought! Iā€™ve been building a protocol and a blockchain for a while, and I believe the role of the chain in solving these challenges is significantā€”or at least thatā€™s been my experience. Could you please share any services that offer composability and interoperability via APIs, your insights or links would be really valuable to me
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction