Well you don’t have to buy the coin, but the technology around sounds super interesting and definitely has a better mindset than the usual blockchains. (agent-centric instead of data-centric).
There is definitely still a long way to go…
But at least the first proof of concept applications aren’t anything financial but more socially oriented (p2p chat, collaboration etc.).
Holochain is not a blockchain, even if chain is in the name, I recommend to at least read into it.
State has to be somehow saved in a distributed p2p network (DHT to be specific), to be useful for real applications.
To motivate users to save state, i.e. offer storage and computation time, it makes sense out of a game-theoretic incentive to reward these users. This does not have to be necessarily a token (it’s just the simplest method).
Just ignore all the crazy capitalism, chain-maximalism and scams that have arosen around “the Blockchain” etc., and focus solely on the technology, and what good can be taken from it.
Because there are indeed quite some interesting technologies that resulted in this scene.
I have read today their website, forum and thing with awful name holo.host (wtf???). Yes they going to use dht instead of blockchain, but the fact that they set themself against blockchain put them to the same niche (same as iota with dag instead of blockchain) etc.
What i dont like :
Crowdfunding with shitcoin (they got money, but no product for 2 years)
They tried to sell their own hardware nodes
Cannot see any novelty or innovation they going to bring
Yes I agree with most of your points. It would’ve been better to first just focus on the technology and make it more accessible especially for developers to create an ecosystem. Currently it seems the other way around, make it more accessible for end users (holo port, “Low code zone”), and while this is good in the long run (we don’t want to gatekeep, and include non-developers as well), you’ll first need to actually create applications and the technology around it. There is currently just a very small ecosystem of developers.
Also a point that I don’t really like, they could’ve created a lot of libraries to be able to cobble together a “DApp” without any binding to an ecosystem. Because I doubt that one Blockchain/ecosystem/whatever-it-is-called etc. will succeed in the long run.
I think the novelty they bring is the as they call it “Immune” system, which seems like a good approach to create trustless p2p systems. And just the fact that they combine a bunch of interesting technologies (git/merkle-tree, DHT) together to create a coherent system.
Anyway it will be interesting to watch where this will go.
I think we certainly should go true p2p in the long run. E.g. create a p2p chat applications where the enduser devices e.g. Smartphone act as server.
Well you don’t have to buy the coin, but the technology around sounds super interesting and definitely has a better mindset than the usual blockchains. (agent-centric instead of data-centric).
There is definitely still a long way to go…
But at least the first proof of concept applications aren’t anything financial but more socially oriented (p2p chat, collaboration etc.).
It is all could be done without a blockchain and token, that is stop signal for me
Holochain is not a blockchain, even if chain is in the name, I recommend to at least read into it.
State has to be somehow saved in a distributed p2p network (DHT to be specific), to be useful for real applications. To motivate users to save state, i.e. offer storage and computation time, it makes sense out of a game-theoretic incentive to reward these users. This does not have to be necessarily a token (it’s just the simplest method).
Just ignore all the crazy capitalism, chain-maximalism and scams that have arosen around “the Blockchain” etc., and focus solely on the technology, and what good can be taken from it.
Because there are indeed quite some interesting technologies that resulted in this scene.
I have read today their website, forum and thing with awful name holo.host (wtf???). Yes they going to use dht instead of blockchain, but the fact that they set themself against blockchain put them to the same niche (same as iota with dag instead of blockchain) etc. What i dont like :
Yes I agree with most of your points. It would’ve been better to first just focus on the technology and make it more accessible especially for developers to create an ecosystem. Currently it seems the other way around, make it more accessible for end users (holo port, “Low code zone”), and while this is good in the long run (we don’t want to gatekeep, and include non-developers as well), you’ll first need to actually create applications and the technology around it. There is currently just a very small ecosystem of developers. Also a point that I don’t really like, they could’ve created a lot of libraries to be able to cobble together a “DApp” without any binding to an ecosystem. Because I doubt that one Blockchain/ecosystem/whatever-it-is-called etc. will succeed in the long run.
I think the novelty they bring is the as they call it “Immune” system, which seems like a good approach to create trustless p2p systems. And just the fact that they combine a bunch of interesting technologies (git/merkle-tree, DHT) together to create a coherent system.
Anyway it will be interesting to watch where this will go.
I think we certainly should go true p2p in the long run. E.g. create a p2p chat applications where the enduser devices e.g. Smartphone act as server.