It's terrible that these people want alternatives to MS owning all of our infrastructure! /s
When did the hatred for anything with a token turn into outright bootlicking? Do we not remember MS of the 90s?
When did the hatred for anything with a token turn into outright bootlicking? Do we not remember MS of the 90s?
When the "thing" that is going to replace "MS of the 90s" is actually a grift with the intent of propping up another grift; how is it bootlicking to be incredulous?
If you want to build an alternative to GitHub, sure, but keep the tuplip bulb fake money out of it.
Make them understand they're not welcome in polite society.
This site has been getting a lot better at that, but it's all of our duty to give pushback wherever we can.
You could say that this dissuades many talented developers from taking on the bounty, which is true, sure. That doesn't make it a crypto project.
It's not a grift to use a currency as a currency. That's the actually worthwhile purpose, you being able to send money to people without messing with payment processors who are themselves grifts.
This is driven by a desire to boost cryptocurrency which is understandable given that investors are realizing how little value has been created with all of the billions spent, but that doesn’t mean it’s a sound or even coherent idea. For example, what is “permissionless” other than a marketing slogan when you’re talking about a real decentralized protocol which has been that way since its beginning 17 years ago?
Even if you hate all cryptocurrencies and financial use cases, the space has spurred a ton of new and interesting applied research. Ignoring eg BLS signatures and multiparty computation because of affinity with cryptocurrency isn't rational.
This is about a decentralised alternative to GitHub. All of the other parts that they have on top of the git hosting. Issues, PRs, stars, followers, everything. GitHub the social network. The thing that MS paid $$$ to buy.
The reason that people centralise themselves on GitHub. That’s what we need a decentralised alternative for. So that everything everyone is doing on GitHub can be done without involvement and rule from a giant corporation and their commercial interests.
The fact that someone is offering to pay a bounty in BTC for the creation of a Github alternative using the Nostr protocol does not make Nostr, nor this Github alternative, a crypto token.
Don’t get me wrong, self-hosted GitLab is very useful too. But it is different from the goal of replacing GitHub with a decentralised alternative.
The decentralised alternative to GitHub should work such that there is no one party that decides over accounts. You should be able to float freely around the network of instances.
You should be able to follow other people and star their repositories.
People, and code, should exist independently of the individual instances in the network.
Any instance could ban you, and any instance could ban some of the people you follow or repositories you are following. But the network as a whole can still allow you to continue to follow others and others to follow you.
Your identity is not tied to the instance. Your repositories are not tied to the instance.
If one instance bans you, you can access the same network with the same identity from another instance. And others can still find you with that same identity over the network.
You will need to spend significantly more time on writing code, debugging, testing, creating PR that follows all the guidelines, potentially signing legal docs etc. If you can’t spend 15s on creating a new account I’m not sure I would be interested in accepting such PR.
At a high level, a git commit hash is a SHA1 hash of the state of the git repository at the time of the commit.
https://medium.com/@jonathan_finch/git-commit-hash-number-th...
You do realize that github != git, right?
For smaller projects you have Gitea which is ultralight and works perfectly if you don't need CI/CD.