User B: Is user C's stream dead for anyone else? User A: I see user C. User C: Sorry, what? I'm right here.
Honestly, other than a 1-1 chat, I can't think of a situation where p2p is worthwhile. Even then, it's almost always better to use an SFU.
729 karma · joined December 21, 2021
User B: Is user C's stream dead for anyone else? User A: I see user C. User C: Sorry, what? I'm right here.
Honestly, other than a 1-1 chat, I can't think of a situation where p2p is worthwhile. Even then, it's almost always better to use an SFU.
And how would you write an option on your ownership stake using conventional technology? That seems like it would be prohibitively hard.
How would you use your ownership as collateral in a loan? The illiquid nature of private stock may turn some lenders off. On a blockchain, the collateral can be part of the smart contract.
Many technological advances simply make already possible things easier. For instance, checks were around since the time of the Crusades. Functionally, checks transfer money from one account to another. We also have a postal service we can use to send checks almost anywhere in the world. So why do we have digital banking infrastructure and wire transfers?
The biggest issue with your argument is that you have inadequate explanations for the failures that have happened. Chernobyl: bad reactor design. Fukushima: under engineered. Obviously people don’t set out to poorly design or under engineer a nuclear power plant. How do we know that we haven’t missed anything significant and crucial to long term safe operation? Such a thing is unknowable, so all we can do is look at the evidence, and the evidence is that there is a history of poor design choices leading to events that border on calamity. Humans are fallible. Choosing a strategy that can go horribly wrong due to human error is not wise in my opinion.