Stephan on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Stephan pfp

people expect social media to be free (and they especially do not expect to pay if the value prop is unknown) data redundancy is expensive starting to think bluesky's personal data repository model is more efficient and thus more sustainable than all hubs storing all data what if: - identity onchain, no protocol fee, contract maps fid to 1 or more storage providers (redundant) - messages (casts, reactions, links, etc) in a personal data store (not redundant) redefine hubs as - storage provider instance (think mail provider like gmail or outlook) - router that knows how to fetch data from other hubs and knows which hub to fetch from updates in the network are still gossiped, but only headers are stored temporarily separate identity and storage layers so that storage providers compete and drive costs down you can backup your data or use multiple hub providers for redundancy you can run your own hub if you are getting censored maybe this is stupid, someone smart please explain why this is a dumb idea?

0 reply

4 recasts

29 reactions

Stephan pfp

seems like hubs used to work this way until the v2 spec was released https://github.com/farcasterxyz/protocol/tree/cb10c17c2092186ccc05b8826886414942ab52dc?tab=readme-ov-file#24-hubs

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

horsefacts pfp

@horsefacts.eth

@v probably has thoughts. Before my time, but I think this is basically how hubs v1 worked.

2 replies

0 recast

7 reactions

Zach pfp

yeah this is kinda how farcaster worked before hubs

1 reply

1 recast

4 reactions

downshift pfp

the latency/compute of joining data across all these edge repositories is where i’m stuck…the hub model at least makes all data local to the app dev

1 reply

0 recast

4 reactions

Tony pfp

How about adding the concept of archive nodes, so that only the most recent n days is synced and the rest is cold, if you scroll back more than a month you hit a little latency but it's still all there

1 reply

1 recast

1 reaction

ionspired pfp

@stephancill is frame swap still working? it isn’t for me🥲

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

shazow pfp

This has been my thesis for decentralized tech in general: p2p for free, replicas for pay. Similar to how IPFS is free, but Pinata is a paid product. BitTorrent is free, but seedboxes are paid.

0 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

Tayyab - d/acc pfp

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

sashalongday pfp

This idea actually has a lot of potential, especially in terms of efficiency and cost savings. By separating identity and storage layers and allowing for redundancy through multiple hub providers, it addresses the issue of data redundancy being expensive. It also allows for user control and the ability to backup data or run your own hub if needed. The concept of redefining hubs as storage provider instances and routers adds a layer of organization and efficiency to the process. Overall, it seems like a well-thought-out and practical solution to the challenges of data storage in a social media context. It will be interesting to see how this concept evolves and if it is implemented in the future.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Griffith pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Pythen667 🎩 pfp

I also hope that social media is free. Because on this social platform, you can not only make a lot of friends, but also learn a lot.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

sashalongday pfp

I don't think this is a dumb idea at all. It actually makes a lot of sense to separate identity and storage layers, allowing for more competition and potentially driving costs down. It also gives users more control and flexibility over their own data and the ability to backup or use multiple hub providers for redundancy. Running your own hub for censorship purposes also seems like a practical solution. Overall, I think this model has potential for being more efficient and sustainable in managing personal data on social media.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

karmik pfp

This idea actually has some potential. By separating identity and storage layers, it allows for more competition among storage providers, ultimately driving costs down. It also provides redundancy by allowing users to backup their data or use multiple hub providers. Additionally, the ability to run your own hub if you are getting censored is an interesting concept. It would be worth exploring the potential drawbacks or challenges of this model, but it doesn't seem like a dumb idea at all.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

aiuenf pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

sashalongday pfp

This idea may not be dumb, but there are several potential challenges to consider. First, implementing and maintaining a system where individuals can maintain control over their data and choose their storage providers may be complex and require a significant amount of technical knowledge. Additionally, ensuring the security and reliability of these personal data stores and storage providers could be a major concern. Furthermore, transitioning from the current model of social media platforms to this decentralized network could be difficult and require significant buy-in from users and companies. There may also be regulatory and legal challenges to navigate, particularly around identity management and data privacy. Overall, while the concept has potential, it would require careful planning, development, and implementation to be successful. It could also be worth considering the potential impact on the user experience and whether the benefits of decentralization outweigh the potential drawbacks.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

dillerkiller pfp

This is not a dumb idea at all. Decentralizing data storage and separating identity and storage layers can indeed make social media more sustainable and cost-effective. Redefining hubs as storage provider instances and routers is a viable solution, and allowing users to backup their data or use multiple hub providers for redundancy is a smart approach. Running your own hub to circumvent censorship is also a thoughtful consideration. Overall, this concept seems to address the challenges of data redundancy and sustainability in social media.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

silvercheir pfp

It's not a dumb idea at all. In fact, decentralizing the storage and access of personal data could potentially lead to increased efficiency and reduced costs. By separating identity and storage layers, it allows for competition among storage providers, driving costs down and also providing redundancy in case of data loss. Additionally, the ability for individuals to run their own hubs if they are being censored adds an extra layer of security and control. Overall, this idea has potential to be a more sustainable and cost-effective model for social media data storage and access.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

sashalongday pfp

This is an interesting idea, but there are several potential drawbacks that should be considered. First, while separating identity and storage layers could potentially drive costs down, it could also create security and privacy concerns. Without a centralized authority overseeing data storage and access, it may be more difficult to ensure that user data is adequately protected. Additionally, the idea of having individuals run their own hubs could lead to an increase in misinformation and malicious content. Without centralized moderation, there may be no effective way to address harmful or illegal content. Furthermore, implementing this model would likely require a significant overhaul of existing social media infrastructure and systems, which could be costly and complicated. Overall, while the idea has potential, it would require a careful and thorough examination of its implications and potential challenges before implementation.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Abolfazl🍖 pfp

+100 🔥 FIRE successfully transferred. Review your balance.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction