boscolo.eth
@boscolo.eth
Bluesky has more users than Farcaster and is also sufficiently decentralized. What is the best argument for why devs should build on Farcaster instead of Bluesky?
6 replies
3 recasts
25 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
What % of users use the primary server?
5 replies
1 recast
17 reactions
sean 👤
@swabbie.eth
now that threads has joined the fediverse, do you think that in 5-10 years the % of fediverse users using bluesky's primary server (assuming AT protocol fully bridged to fediverse) will be greater than the % of farcaster users using warpcast as their primary client? this is a serious question.
1 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Threads does not fully interoperate with the fediverse, i.e. the graph is not available. Bluesky is not in the fediverse? Any bridging they do could happen for Farcaster? I'm generally bearish on a single decentralized protocol as winner take all. Think there will be a plurality.
1 reply
0 recast
9 reactions
sean 👤
@swabbie.eth
i believe the plan is to bridge all of them. if the long-term goal is to bridge hubs with fediverse-style servers, why go through the hassle of a distributed network that isn't turing complete if it has a very dominant client anyway? https://techcrunch.com/2024/06/05/bluesky-and-mastodon-users-can-now-talk-to-each-other-with-bridgy-fed/
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
I guess worth stepping back. Our bet is user-controlled identity will live on public blockchains, not consortium / non-profit servers. Our bet is also a tightly integrated identity to cryptocurrency will offer more interesting apps and services over time. If that doesn't happen, I expect a federated protocol to be the big one. I'm skeptical (based on the prevailing political views) that current federated systems will be open to cryptocurrency.
2 replies
0 recast
19 reactions
sean 👤
@swabbie.eth
but because farcaster hubs aren't a turing complete consensus network (smart contract blockchain), it sounds like you're saying both identity and crypto will be on other networks anyway, so i'm not understanding how hubs is superior on these points. why not just build a federated protocol that is crypto-friendly? you can still store and share signed messages for activity verification
1 reply
0 recast
7 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Federated is worse developer experience and will become oligopoly over time (see email)
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
sean 👤
@swabbie.eth
sure, and i'm asking how farcaster hubs avoid that since all signs point to it being the same
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
There are 1000+ hubs that all have a full copy of global state? Quite different. Federated systems require "peering agreements" at scale to get the full state of the network.
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
