|
|
|
|
|
by zeroxfe
2416 days ago
|
|
> Twitter would still likely end up hosting that blockchain, since nobody else is going to foot that cost Why do you assume that? Modern blockchains are not proof-of-work, and the only info you need on a blockchain are permissions and encryption keys to data on other distributed storage networks (e.g, IPFS.) So the cost isn't really very high, and probably worth the tradeoff for groups that feel alienated or disenfranchised. |
|
Bandwidth & storage isn't free. Why would anyone voluntarily just do that for Twitter? Even if it's literally entirely free to setup & host, that's still someone's time & motivation to do so. People do this for blockchain because they're trying to get rich off of it. There's no money in hosting tweets.