[Sakos]

I'm open to the idea that blockchain might somehow be useful for something somehow in the future. I don't see what LibreOffice could gain from blockchain.

I also think it's telling that they'd rather ignore the negative feedback because they want to apparently continue on this path than actually recognize that people don't want blockchain garbage ruining what's otherwise a good project.

I'm looking forward to the next post in 6-12 months where they talk about all the "awesome" plans they have with blockchain and they'll have the comments locked from the beginning. Oh, and not to forget the ensuing fork because honestly, we just want a word processor that doesn't suck and isn't proprietary.

[ekianjo]

> I'm open to the idea that blockchain might somehow be useful for something somehow in the future. I don't see what LibreOffice could gain from blockchain.

It's not because you can't imagine anything that nobody else can.

[mavhc]

Why shouldn't you ignore feedback that's ill informed, reactionary, or just wrong?

[DemocracyFTW2]

Are we already at the point where saying that crypto is a scam and the blockchain won't serve a useful purpose in a word processor is—"reactionary"? Dude get a grip.

[mavhc]

The article was very specific about it not being crypto and not being used in a word processor, so yes.

[actually_a_dog]

Maybe because it's coming from the people who read your blog and use your software?

[mavhc]

Most of your users are idiots though, they'll just ask for a faster horse

[DemocracyFTW2]

Aren't you the guy who tried to sell a faster blockchain to me last week so I can keep better track of all the horses in my stable?