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
33 reactions
links 🏴
@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 can’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
six
@six
Yeah blockchains provide the unruggability guarantee
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Jason
@jachian
Believe this is the premise of Quil though that it doesn’t need to be a blockchain, but it does need some form factor to be unruggable
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
six
@six
Ah interesting. But quil token is on ETH right? So still needs a blockchain in some capacity?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
links 🏴
@links
Quil has a native token that is wrapped on ETH IIRC.
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
six
@six
Ah that’s why it’s WQUIL on ETH. I need to learn more about the whole thing still, last time I looked at the whitepaper i got cooked
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
links 🏴
@links
It’s pretty difficult for me to wrap my head around. I think @cassie ‘s talk at Farcon is what got me the most excited about it
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Jason
@jachian
White paper is very technical. Slightly lower level (still technical) is finding one of the @cassie explainers on it
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
