Geoff Golberg
@geoffgolberg
Farcaster isn’t a true protocol Just enough theater to get developers' trust
8 replies
2 recasts
19 reactions
FarcasterMarketing
@quillingqualia.eth
Say more? What's a true protocol and why farcaster isn't one?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Leeward Bound
@leewardbound
+ only one server by only one company, no node diversity + majority client has non-open features + regular proto changes, non stable + all major changes come from one central actor it's a protocol by definition, but as far as protocols go, it's not a good one. unwise to build in this ecosystem, especially when you see major builders getting their whole platform obviated by flippant breaking changes. nobody sane would try competing with Hubble or Warpcast (unless they have 8 figures to burn thru) and that is a significant problem for the whole "open protocol" argument. this is merkel land and merkel will make or break rules to sink any serious competition.
2 replies
1 recast
16 reactions
Samuel ツ
@samuellhuber.eth
Hubble APIs haven’t changed significantly If you build just on these you‘re fine THOUGH as you said Warpcast non protocol features are expected by users and hubs don’t have these by definition So one has to design within these constraints The counter to my no rapid protocol changes is long casts. They fucked me over with that since that’s a can’t argue about it change being pulled into protocol in 24hrs
3 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
Varun Srinivasan
@v
> They fucked me over with that curious, what did it break for you?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Samuel ツ
@samuellhuber.eth
that relates to me now not being able to argument for the protocol being stable anymore since that change. meaning my usual argument that developing on non protocol features is expected to be experimental but protocol spec being stable has a taint (or is completely voided, depending on how one argues)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
