> you can just build software and it will "run" forever, at no cost to the developer.
We already have software that runs at no cost to the developer. It's called software.
We already have software that runs at no cost to the developer. It's called software.
You can run someone else's software and pay for the actual running thereof, it's called installing it on a virtual machine (and things like the AWS Marketplace exist for turn-key solutions). Maybe something "microtransactiony" could happen here - but why would you need a blockchain when AWS can just make "Marketplace for normal people"?
And many of the other solutions provided end up having a central authority, in which case why not just have ... a database? Amusingly enough most crypto exchanges are internally run not on a blockchain but on a database, even though in theory one entirely on a blockchain might be a workable use case.
They're also federated, but at the cost of being exponentially more expensive to run.
If you have the common data, it's on a central database and the developer is paying for it.
Blockchains give you the common data without the developer paying.
You don't have to run a node to hold coins. A piece of paper can do it.