An illustrative glimpse into the BCH development process:
"...one of the most critical pieces of transaction validation had been refactored...there was no justification other than “encapsulation,” it had only two reviewers, and review only lasted a week before the code was accepted."
Brilliant article on how a Bitcoin dev discovered a critical BCH bug, and reported it responsibly to have it fixed: https://medium.com/@coryfields/http-coryfields-com-cash-48a99b85aad4
8/7 Do we call these "tootstorms" now? Lol - I'm digging this new lingo.
7/7 1. What did I get wrong? No way I was right about all that. Let me know!
2. If we agree that Twitter is unlikely to overplay its hand enough to send a tipping-point number of people here, how can we lower that tipping point?
(Without resorting to evil things like fostering abuse of moderation privilege on Twitter, or stuff like that, of course.)
6/7 Now for the yes. "Yes", because to a certain degree, the network effect can be shared between different platforms competing to provide more desirable rules.
Remember that tipping point that must be reached before people leave Twitter? That's going to be a whole hell of a lot lower for switching between instances of Mastodon, than it is for leaving Twitter outright.
This leaves me with two questions:
5/7 I'll start with no. "No", because it seems likely to me that people who can run more successful instances, could probably figure out a way to monetize it. And if they can, that means they can probably pay devs to make custom upgrades to their instances which they may not be incentivized to open-source, since it gives them a leg up.
So we'll likely just have a new censor running things in place of our twitters and facebooks, and not quite that utopia people wish for.
4/7 The person who truly doesn't believe in any censorship on platforms is the one who goes to 4chan and thinks 'ok, this is aight...but what's with the ban on CP?'
Fortunately, there aren't many of those people. So what's going to happen is people will simply gravitate toward servers that have their preferred level of moderation, and they can claim others are too strict, and others are too lax.
Now, this is still a big step forward, right? Well, no and yes.
3/7 Maybe they are forced to by a government. Maybe another factor indirectly causes a shift. Let's assume for a minute that it happens, and people start moving en masse and Mastodon takes over. Huzzah! Now what? We now have our censorship-free utopia!
Well, not quite.
I expect the first thing people would learn is that every does like a bit of censorship/moderation. They just call it censorship if it's more than they'd like, and moderation if it's the 'right' amount (or less).
2/7 But things will have to get substantially worse before we can reach a tipping point that can overcome Twitters *massive* head start wrt network effect.
The peeps running Twitter must know this, so I'd say there's a high (>90%) chance that they reign themselves in before this happens, and the majority of people remaining grudgingly satisfied enough with the situation to not leave.
Let's say that something causes a push to that tipping point. Maybe Twitter overplays their hand.
1/7 First time dabbling with #decentralized social media - what better time to make some predictions about it? Clearly is a backlash against censorship/moderation policies from centralized services like twitter.
Network effects are strong, though, so there will need to be a *strong* reason for more people to leave #Twitter for #Mastodon. The current levels of moderation are, IMO, enough to get more fringe and privacy-oriented folks (like the fine people of #Bitcoin twitter) to move over.
If you're arguing about whether #Bitcoin should be "Digital Gold" or whether it should be "Digital Cash", then you've bought into a false dichotomy.
AKA makriath. Bitcoiner working at Blockstream.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!