Content
@
0 reply
20 recasts
20 reactions
sean 🔹
@swabbie.eth
some of us criticize farcaster because we love it (or even building on it, thus we care)
1 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
Matthew
@matthew
i think that’s great, wasn’t trying to infer it was not above criticism.
1 reply
1 recast
3 reactions
Matthew
@matthew
out of curiosity tho @swabbie.eth are there any major criticisms that are top of mind right now?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
sean 🔹
@swabbie.eth
i have concerns that farcaster funding is incredibly centralized (nearly all goes to merkle), but i'd say my biggest concern is that the farcaster standard (hubs) aren't turing complete, which means that enabling other types of social content requires protocol updates rather than simple application development (or contract development in the case of smart contract blockchains). the "twitter experience" is baked in, as well as a few embed enhancements, but otherwise features rely on standards external to the distributed network itself (the client-side frames standard is an example). we already have a superior way to enforce distributed standards in the smart contract blockchain model. if we are simply going to rely on client-side standards for most feature extensions, we might as well use a federated model which would allow for faster growth. this middle of the road method with the current hubs only has downsides compared to the alternatives. https://warpcast.com/swabbie.eth/0x7e2e7553
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
sean 🔹
@swabbie.eth
as an example, enabling network-wide profile location data should be as simple as deploying a contract, but instead it requires an entire protocol update. we've regressed in our distributed network technology - the current hub model is closer to the bitcoin / litecoin model rather than the ethereum model, which is not good for a protocol as dynamic as a social network. https://warpcast.com/v/0x830f1aab
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
