> Yup. This is a web app (so, hosting is required), and it was built in a few days by a newbie and is hosted on a few machines by some randos. But, isn't that ... interesting? That something like this could be built and deployed and -- theoretically scale globally?
Sure. It is interesting that someone can build a web app, host it on temporary machines, and then one day scale it into a major business model.
That's not new to blockchain. That's how the internet works at a fundamental level. What specifically drives blockchain to be useful or novel or interesting in this model? How is this application better for being on chain?
Because: this specific App (not "something like" it, but this one written in a few days by a newbie), could potentially scale to 1B users -- and nobody could stop it. Some static assets would need to be tuned in a real App, to be hosted by a CDN like Cloudflare (or, possibly provided by the App's hosting nodes themselves if no CDN is desired), but the App itself would scale.
If a certain fraction of those users decided to install it (instead of use it via the Web interface), this scaling would be "free" -- paid for by the eg. 10% who installed it.
I've been doing this professionally for 40 years, 30 of which I've spend searching for solutions to specific problems in this domain. I was there in '09 and downloaded Satoshi's reference implementation, and again in '15 for Ethereum; that's "blockchain"; what you call "being on chain". They didn't solve the problems I was trying to find solutions for (scalable consistency in occasionally connected systems).
> could potentially scale to 1B users -- and nobody could stop it. Some static assets would need to be tuned in a real App, to be hosted by a CDN like Cloudflare
You've just show at least one way how it would be stopped. Who exactly is going to pay for static assets delivered to 1B users via Cloudflare?
> but the App itself would scale.
Of course it wouldn't. None of the blockchains have the required throughput. Yes, they want you to believe they have it, but they don't.
> that's "blockchain"; what you call "being on chain". They didn't solve the problems
> This is new.
So they didn't solve the problems, but somehow this "app by a newbie" is suddenly solving all these problems and "scales to 1B users" because blockchain?
Oh. And it doesn't scale because you can't even link to a post on it because "someone needs to pay for hosting". So it couldn't scale beyond a single user?
Hmm, okay. For others that come later in search of information, I'll address some of these.
> ... one way it can be stopped.
Yes, this newbie developer made some decisions that couldn't scale to 1B users. Alternatively, each node can serve static assets, thus scaling linearly w/o CDNs. This isn't required for most apps, as they aren't targets for state-level actors seeking to deplatform them from CDNs. But, if a totally free client self-hosted app is desired, this is possible.
> ... None of the blockchains have the required throughput.
Obviously. That's why "this is new." Blockchains enforcing global consensus on a "total order" of unrelated events cannot: the laws of physics forbid it, besides it being wasteful and unnecessary. Holochain does not enforce such unnecessary "total order" consensus; it is not necessary, as it turns out, for maintaining state consistency in distributed systems. That is the breakthrough. This is a low-research "Bro" comment.
> ... can't even link to ... it because "someone needs to pay for hosting"
Ya, I was just being considerate. It's a newbie's app, hosted by a few people.
The point is, there is something new going on here; something that some hackers on HN might be interested in. I know the 2018 "Me" would have been interested!
If you're not, that's fine - carry on! However, no more low-research "Bro" comments, okay? ... Ah, I see that you are rabidly anti-Crypto, and that's fine: fill your boots! But, for those visitors who are interested in amazing things, don't be discouraged! There are indeed new things happening here that are worth investigating.
> Obviously. That's why "this is new." Blockchains enforcing global consensus on a "total order" of unrelated events cannot: the laws of physics forbid it, besides it being wasteful and unnecessary. Holochain does not enforce such unnecessary "total order" consensus; it is not necessary, as it turns out, for maintaining state consistency in distributed systems. That is the breakthrough. This is a low-research "Bro" comment.
I really want to see the peer reviewed research published in respectable science publications.
Otherwise this stuff is a dime a dozen like battery breakthroughs.
This is the kind of thing that gets that person Nobel prizes and Turing awards.
Odds are 99.999999% that whoever's against this thing is right and it's just vaporware or dead ends somewhere months of years down the line.
In any case, go have fun meanwhile, any lesson is good, including about what NOT to do :-)
It unsurprising how you went from "could potentially scale to 1B users -- and nobody could stop it, this is new" to "of course it cannot scale, but this is still new"
So what exactly is new, and how can it scale?
Note: for a newbie Glitch and Itch are infinitely more scalable, and more innovative.
