@MikeBeas Oh, okay, I thought they had gone to some other name.
I know why they set up the relay based system, and I understand their reasons for it, even if it feels kind of like Weirder Bigger Token Ring to me. I appreciate the arguments for things like preserving sequentiality and inter-instance reply consistency (something we have now here too).
But I still think they're a mistake _because_ of the structural requirements in running one at scale, which _will_ discourage others from being set up even if it is in theory possible.
They require large money. Inevitably. And that just leads back to centralisation again. Yes, I know, in certain ways it's more efficient, but to me it feels like just moving the football again, Lucy.
(1/2)
@MikeBeas I suppose I want to say:
_I'm not rooting against them._
I just think that they're never going to be the kind of distributed that AP can be and that creates a particular set of types of problems that can't be handwaved away, once of which being the _reliance_ on Relay.
Thanks for the update on portable identity. Assuming it's still blockchain-record based (as it was supposedly going to be) maybe it'll be the first actually _good_ use of that technology.
(2/2)