[eropple]

I think there's a lot of good ideas in the Podcasting 2.0 set of specs, but the insistence on stapling crypto shit into it (even for quote-unquote good reasons) has meant that I've got no interest in recommending it as a thing. The podcast tooling I'm building incorporates some parts of what they recommend, but digging into it is sufficiently radioactive that I'm not putting that brand name anywhere near my stuff.

[rchaud]

As well-intentioned as some in the crypto space are, it's telling that not one implementation besides the big 2 (which are used for speculation rather than transactions) has managed to pick up a following in terms of actual usage.

As fragmented as open source efforts usually are, there's usually some network effect that lowers the risk for someone else to try it. Linux, LibreOffice, Lightttpd etc. With crypto it's winner-take-all.

[hedora]

For this sort of thing, you could always use git (optionally with signed commits).

It’s strictly a generalization of a block chain, since the chain is a tree. Also, instead of remaining anonymous and trying to scam pension funds, its creator named it after himself.

It’s also at least a million times more energy efficient, and has better support for federation (i.e., forks).

[Spivak]

It honestly doesn't seem that bad. Is there something less-obvious going on because it just looks like it's just "tip us with BTC" but better integrated than a QR code?

[eropple]

I don't want to be even peripherally associated with people who think these are socially legitimate tools.

[teekert]

I don’t understand how you can be so fundamentally against crypto. Even when btc lightning solves most reasons why you probably hate it (ok perhaps not the hodl thing).

I really enjoy Podverse and real time transcripts and live shows and chapters, etc…

[JohnFen]

> I don’t understand how you can be so fundamentally against crypto.

There are a lot of different reasons people can be fundamentally against crypto, and those reasons have been talked about in great depth over the last few years. Even if you don't agree with them, the various "anti" positions aren't that difficult to understand.

[teekert]

Well until there is a better way to stream value, even at fractions of a penny, I’m using this. I wonder if ever something better will come along.

[JohnFen]

Sure, if the crypto scene is something that you don't have a problem with, then it's something you don't have a problem with. Different people have different stances about this.

[smoldesu]

> Even when btc lightning solves most reasons

Lightning is nice but it's an unrelated project. Bitcoin itself is still fundamentally flawed and Lightning is basically syntactic sugar on the same decaying infrastructure. It "solves" the same problems Bitcoin did with a loosely agnostic framework around ... the exact same blockchain. It's the equivalent of getting a second-try on a test you failed just to write the same answer down.

And Lighting is one of the good ones. Other L2 chains range from "marginally exploitative" to "broken" to "outright literal scam" depending on the developer.

[eropple]

> Even when btc lightning solves most reasons why you probably hate it

It "solves" that it is a predatory minefield of grifters, jangling keys of hope in front of people with little to lose?

Since when?