You are viewing a single comment's thread:
RE: Although subjectively downvoting posts to zero is anathema to me, the Layer 1 ability to do so must remain (for now at least)
I am glad we can share a little mutual understanding.
Although I do not purport to fully understand the 'code is law' mindset, I can say that if I had been one of the early arrivers, I would probably be much more closely aligned with that worldview than the one I currently have.
In any event, I believe that, by and large, we share the same goals. It's just that we disagree on the means and methods to achieve those goals.
That is why I have chosen to focus my efforts on Layer 2. If I can create a Layer 2 solution that is appealing to others who share my worldview, then I see three possible outcomes:
- not many flock to the Layer 2 solution and it dies on the vine,
- the Layer 2 solution flourishes and there ends up being some meaningful lessons-learned that lead to Layer 1 improvements,
- the Layer 2 solution flourishes, but nothing changes substantively with Layer 1.
I am okay with any of the three. My hope and preference would be for outcome #2. However, if we end up with outcome #3, the censorship-resistance features of Layer 1 will continue to provide foundational benefits to the Layer 2 solution, and any disagreements about Layer 1 downvotes and Layer 1 reward pools become irrelevant (to me and the members of the new Layer 2 community). And, those who find themselves unhappy with subjective downvotes on Layer 1 will have a place where they can go -- a place built on a firm foundation (something Blurt and sites like it cannot offer, imho).
There are lot of L2 options available already. The trouble becomes an even smaller subset of people and more circle voting. Look at Leo. Look at POB in the early days maybe even now. You simply don’t have enough things to vote. Most of us are leaning towards the fact that curation dependent economy is dying or already dead. Incentive must be placed in something else.
View more
"Code is law," especially when used in reference to a blockchain where the code can be changed by less than two dozen people (all based on Stake and nothing else), is the same as saying "Might makes right."
This claim has been used since 2016, even though the code keeps changing. Weird, huh?
I have been pondering over the last several days about your ideas for a layer 2 approach. After much thought I do believe that you are indeed correct in that this would likely be the best way to rapidly innovate solutions for layer 1. I know, however, that their are people who would like to keep layer 2 on layer 2 so as to keep static how layer 1 is implemented in their favour at the expense of the entire Hive community. These people want innovation to happen at layer 2 and only at layer 2 and will do everything they can (from controlling what people see on the front page to the ranking of one’s voice in the comments section) to that end. Development on layer 2 justifies (in their minds) the merits of the current layer 1 structure so, of course, they are more than happy to encourage this sort of development. It’s smoke and mirrors however… a distraction from the disfunction happening on the foundational layer. Can we push through and make a layer 2 happen on the base layer? I hope so…🤞 but I guess time will tell. I see a lot of risk in developing on layer 2 with the current social climate.
View more